Strategic escalation in the Middle East

2026-03-05 - 21:53

ON 28 February 2026, sections of the US media outlined four principal objectives behind Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s military strikes against Iran: (a) destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, (b) neutralizing Iran’s naval power, (c) preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and (d) stopping Tehran from arming and supporting non-state actors beyond its borders. Framed as pre-emptive security measures, these objectives were presented as necessary steps to contain Iran’s regional influence. However, the legality and legitimacy of these actions remain deeply contested. Under the United Nations Charter, the use of force against a sovereign state is prohibited except in cases of self-defense or with explicit authorization from the UN Security Council. Iran has neither threatened the security of US nor Israel. Rather Israel has been threatening Iran and all regional states of Middle East. Iran, as a sovereign state, retains the right to maintain defensive capabilities, including missile systems, for its national security. No international body authorized the United States or Israel to carry out military aggression against Iranian military or civilian facilities. This all goes against the international norms and good practices and US and Israel deserve international condemnation and UN sanctions. Washington has justified its actions by citing concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and debates over its compliance have long been the subject of diplomatic negotiations rather than open warfare. Why Trump violated the internationally negotiated nuclear deal in 2018; Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015. It was signed by Iran and the P5+1. Notably, in June 2025, President Donald Trump declared that US B-52 bombers had destroyed key Iranian nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. If such facilities were indeed neutralized at that time, the rationale for renewed military action in 2026 raises serious questions and reveals contradictions in the strategic narrative. Indeed, Iran has repeatedly clarified that, it is not heading towards nuclear weapons. It is just like US attack against Iraq in 2003 which later proved that Baghdad was not in the game of manufacturing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The timing of both the 2025 and 2026 strikes is equally significant. In each case, diplomatic engagements were reportedly underway; first between Iran and European powers and later involving direct US–Iran contacts. The decision to proceed with military action while diplomatic channels remained open suggests a preference for coercive measures over negotiated solutions. This puts US morally low as a super power. Should US really deserve such a status of a legitimate super power or just an immoral power. Declaring “now is the time for peace” immediately after conducting large-scale airstrikes risks appearing inconsistent and undermines the credibility of diplomatic rhetoric. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, expressed grave concern over the escalation, warning that the conflict could spiral out of control with catastrophic consequences for civilians and regional stability. He reiterated that the use of force without Security Council authorization constitutes a direct threat to international peace and security. Such warnings underscore the broader risks of unilateral military actions in an already volatile Middle East. Following the strikes, Iran retaliated with missile attacks targeting Israeli cities and military facilities. The confrontation quickly expanded beyond a limited exchange, with reported strikes on US military installations in parts of the Gulf region, expanding the war to other areas. The intensity of the retaliation challenged long-standing perceptions of Israeli military invulnerability and introduced a new phase of strategic uncertainty. Civilian populations across the region were once again caught in the crossfire of geopolitical rivalry. All US bases and surrounding areas faced severe missile attacks of Iran and at place Israeli spy were undertaking this unholy job just to create differences between Iran and GCC states. Indeed, the US and Israel desire that there should be a war between Iran and GCC states. Beyond the battlefield, the conflict carries significant geopolitical implications. First, rather than weakening domestic cohesion, the external threat appears to have consolidated public support within Iran for its leadership. Historically, foreign military pressure often strengthens nationalist sentiment rather than fragmenting it. Second, public opinion across parts of the Muslim world has grown increasingly critical of US and Israeli aggression, potentially widening the gap between governments aligned with Washington and their domestic constituencies. Third, the escalation has drawn the attention of major powers such as Russia and China, both of whom view expanding US military involvement in the Middle East through the prism of broader great-power competition. Indeed, the military aggression of US and Israel raises questions about the long-term credibility of the United States as a global leader committed to a rules-based international order. The consistent application of international law remains central to maintaining moral authority in global governance. Perceived double standards risk eroding that authority and intensifying global polarization. Middle East has endured decades of instability fueled by wars, sanctions and proxy conflicts. Sustainable peace cannot emerge from cycles of military aggressions and unilateral use of force against a sovereign state. It requires renewed commitment to diplomacy, adherence to international law and recognition of the sovereignty and security concerns of all states in the region. Without these principles, each new escalation risks becoming the prelude to a far more destructive confrontation. The US and Israel must immediately stop military aggression against Iran, a sovereign state. — The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University, Islamabad. (drmkedu@gmail.com)