Israel, Iran and the US — why 2025 is a turning point for the international order
Israel's large-scale attack against Iran on 13 June, which it conducted without UN Security Council approval, prompted retaliation from Tehran. Both sides traded strikes, with more than 400 Iranians and 14 Israelis killed by 24 June.
The escalation has broader consequences. It further isolates institutions like the UN, International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have found themselves increasingly sidelined as Israel's assault on Gaza has progressed. These bodies now appear toothless.
The world appears to be facing an unprecedented upending of the post-1945 international legal order. Israel's government is operating with a level of impunity rarely seen before. At the same time, US President Donald Trump and his administration are actively undermining the global institutions designed to enforce international law.
Other global powers, including Russia and China, are taking this opportunity to move beyond the Western rules-based system. The combination of a powerful state acting with impunity and a superpower disabling the mechanisms of accountability marks a global inflection point.
It is a moment so stark that we may have to rethink what we thought we knew about the conduct of international relations and the management of conflict, both for the Palestinian struggle and the international system of justice built after World War 2.
The Israeli government is, in addition to its pre-emptive air campaign against Iran's nuclear programme, advancing with impunity on three other fronts. It is tightening its hold on Gaza and the prospect of a lasting occupation is increasingly possible.
Senior Israeli ministers have also outlined plans for the annexation of large parts of the occupied West Bank through settlement expansion. This is now proceeding unchecked. Israel confirmed plans in May to create 22 new settlements there, including the legalisation of those already built without government authorisation.
This is being accompanied by provocative legislation such as a bill that would hike taxes on foreign-funded NGOs. The Israeli government is also continuing its attempts to reduce the independence of the judiciary. Hardline elements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet say they will collapse the government if he dares to change course.
The ICJ moved with urgency in response to Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. In January 2024, it found evidence that Palestinians in Gaza were at risk of genocide and ordered Israel to implement provisional measures to prevent further harm.
Then, in May 2024, as Israeli forces pressed an offensive, the ICJ issued another ruling ordering Israel to halt its military operation in the southern Gazan city of Rafah immediately. It also called on Israel to allow unimpeded humanitarian access to the Gaza Strip.
The court went further in July 2024, issuing a landmark advisory opinion declaring Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory illegal. The ICC took bold action by issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and the leaders of Hamas.
Disregarding international law
These dramatic attempts to enforce international law failed. Israel only agreed to a temporary ceasefire in Gaza in January when Washington insisted, which demonstrated that the US remains the only possible brake on Israel.
But the second Trump administration is even more transactional than the first. It prioritises trade deals and strategic alliances – particularly with the Gulf states – over the enforcement of international legal norms.
In January, Trump issued an executive order authorising sanctions on the ICC over the court's 'illegitimate' actions against the US and its 'close ally Israel'. These sanctions came into effect a little over a week before Israel launched its strikes on Iran.
Trump then withdrew the US from the UN Human Rights Council and extended a funding ban on the UN's relief agency for Palestinian refugees.
A further executive order issued in February directed the State Department to withhold portions of the US contribution to the UN's regular budget. Trump also launched a 180-day review of all US-funded international organisations, foreshadowing further exits or funding cuts across the multilateral system.
In May, the US and Israel then advanced a new aid mechanism for Gaza run by private security contractors operating in Israeli-approved 'safe zones'. Aid is conditional on population displacement, and civilians in northern Gaza have been denied access unless they relocate.
This approach, which has been condemned by humanitarian organisations, contravenes established humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality.
Turning point
In effect, one pillar of the post-war order is attacking another. The leading founder of the UN is now undermining the institution from within, wielding its Security Council veto to block action while simultaneously starving the organisation of resources. The US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza on 4 June.
The implications of this turning point in the international order are already playing out across the globe. Russia is continuing its war of aggression in Ukraine despite rulings from the ICJ and extensive evidence of war crimes. It knows that enforcement mechanisms are weak and fragmented and the alternative Trumpian deal-making can be played out indefinitely.
And China is escalating military pressure on Taiwan. It is employing grey-zone tactics, doing everything possible in provocation and disinformation below the threshold of open warfare, undeterred by legal commitments to a peaceful resolution.
These cases are symptoms of a collapse in the credibility of the post-1945 legal order. Israel's policy in Gaza and its attack on Iran are not exceptions, but the acceleration. They are confirmation to other states that law no longer constrains power, institutions can be bypassed and humanitarian principles can be used for political ends. DM
Brian Brivati is a visiting professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston University in London, England.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Iran enacts law suspending cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog
Iran has threatened to halt cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of siding with Western countries and providing a justification for Israel's air strikes, which began a day after the IAEA board voted to declare Iran in violation of obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The law stipulates that any future inspection of Iran's nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency needs approval by Tehran's Supreme National Security Council. 'We are aware of these reports. The IAEA is awaiting further official information from Iran,' the IAEA said in a statement. Separately, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an interview with CBS News that the U.S. bombing of Iran's key Fordow nuclear site has 'seriously and heavily damaged' the facility.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
NATO's Defence Spending: Washington's Political Will Trumps Brussels' Consensus Diplomacy
US President Donald Trump (C) flanked by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (L) and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Image: AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance's strategic orientation. At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO's spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will. When NATO's 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump's framing was blunt: 'Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?' In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump's foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence. Trump's foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed. Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This further aligns with Trump's broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump's domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American. With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO's total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance's coherence. Another component of Trump's rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump's advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity. Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force. The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance's resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China's assertiveness. The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance's operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world." This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO's direction is now synchronised with Washington's political will rather than Brussels' consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance. Trump's assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO's military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump's insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance's strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO's long-term trajectory. Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal? A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump's scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump's demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying. Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as 'Brusselian cockroaches,' signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO's view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity. By meeting Trump's demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine's war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe's collective security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump's 'decisive action in Iran' and describing him as a 'man of peace' who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO's growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte's comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump's primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority. This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China's rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance. If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
BRICS+ Series: The Erosion of Democracy & The rise of BRICS+
Once hailed as the pinnacle of modern governance, democracy now faces challenges in a multipolar world. The Israel–Iran confrontation, exacerbated by American military support, underscores just how fragile the liberal international order has become. BRICS+ countries are not ignorant of this erosion in Western credibility. Many of the same nations that once sought guidance from Washington now see its foreign policy as a source of regional destabilisation. BRICS+, by contrast, offers a platform where sovereignty is valued and development is not made contingent on ideological conformity. China, through its unique model of state-led capitalism, has proven that liberal pluralism is not a prerequisite for material prosperity. Its Belt and Road Initiative now converges with BRICS+ plans to develop infrastructure corridors across the Global South, collectively pushing back against Western financial hegemony. Russia, too, has reoriented eastwards and southwards, diversifying its economy through ruble–yuan settlements and forging strategic partnerships across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For Iran, BRICS+ has emerged as both a diplomatic shield and an economic escape route. In the face of Western sanctions and increasing isolation, Tehran has deepened its ties with fellow member states: ramping up energy cooperation with China, finalising military and infrastructure deals with Russia, and securing membership in the New Development Bank. These moves represent not merely reactive survival tactics, but proactive steps in a larger realignment of global power. The Post-Democratic World and the BRICS+ Blueprint To romanticise BRICS+ would be misguided. The bloc faces its own internal frictions, divergent national interests, and competing values. However, it is precisely in its refusal to enforce ideological consensus that BRICS+ presents a compelling alternative. It does not proselytise; it does not demand that all nations adopt identical political forms or economic systems. Instead, it offers something many in the Global South have long sought: choice. The choice to trade, borrow, and build on one's own terms. In many ways, BRICS+ reflects the emerging post-democratic world with greater honesty than its Western counterparts. It understands that power today resides not in parliamentary speeches or electoral slogans, but in control over energy routes, digital networks, satellite systems, and development banks. Governance, in this world, is less about ideology and more about capacity. It is about who can build, deliver, and protect in an increasingly multipolar and contested landscape. As Iran resists American bombs and Israeli airstrikes, it does so within a growing network of states that, like it, have learned that in today's world, survival hinges more on strategic alliances than electoral rituals. BRICS+ offers these nations infrastructure, financial tools, and diplomatic legitimacy—ingredients for sovereignty in a time of flux. And in doing so, it is quietly rewriting the global rulebook. The next decade is unlikely to be defined by a triumphant contest between democracy and autocracy. Rather, it will hinge on how nations negotiate resilience, sovereignty, and their role in a world no longer policed by Western consensus. BRICS+ is not merely a bloc—it is a blueprint. A living demonstration that legitimacy, prosperity, and progress can take many forms. And perhaps, the future will not be democratic in the familiar sense—but it may, paradoxically, be freer. Written by: *Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Chloe Maluleke Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Russian & Middle Eastern Specialist **The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL. ** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
