Author: rb809rb

Conceived in the long shadow of global devastation, the post–World War II order was constructed -imperfect yet purposeful – to shield humanity from a similar catastrophe.

In 1943, as the tides of battle in World War II began to turn in favour of the Allied powers, United States President Franklin D Roosevelt warned: “Unless the peace that follows recognises that the whole world is one neighbourhood, and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind.”

Today, that coveted peace is increasingly fragile.

The post-war architecture conceived to avert great-power conflict, institutionalise interstate cooperation, reduce hot wars, and entrench human rights within binding international law is now under acute pressures. It faces a combustible mix of resurgent ultranationalism, hyperintensified zero-sum strategic rivalries and hegemonic power plays, the fragmentation of longstanding alliances, and the brazen repudiation of established norms.

Multilateral institutions that once underwrote stability are increasingly marginalised or instrumentalised in the service of Machiavellian politics. Foundational treaties are hollowed out or breached outright, compliance regimes weakened, and enforcement mechanisms rendered inert—leaving the post-war international system exposed to the very coercive power politics it was designed to contain.

The result is a palpable drift towards an unchecked “force-based order”, under which might displaces right, and power eclipses principle.

International orders do not suddenly unravel because of political declarations broadcast at podiums, nor because of the conduct of aberrant outliers. They collapse when those collectively entrusted with their stewardship neglect to properly defend them – when resolve gives way to timidity, principle is bartered for political expedience, and moral clarity is supplanted by double standards.

Unless the international community acts with resolve to defend and modernise the international order – fortifying rather than constraining it, including by making it more representative and meaningfully inclusive – the global system will drift toward a far more volatile and perilous disequilibrium.

The United Nations charter – one of the central instruments of the post-war legal infrastructure – is under threat. The charter enshrines the bedrock rule of the modern international order that no state may threaten or use force except in self-defence or with UN Security Council authorisation.

That peremptory norm – the foundation of the collective security architecture – is now visibly fraying. As raw power eclipses legal restraint, and the silence or equivocation of the many emboldens the few, the prohibition on the illegal use of force risks sliding from binding law into empty rhetoric.

Almost overnight, the threat of force – and even unilateral military action undertaken without legal authorisation or meaningful deliberation – has begun to crystallise into a disturbing new normal. This accelerating erosion of established norms is not a passing anomaly; it is a structural shift with profound implications for international peace and security.

Institutions of international law, which have played a decisive role in preventing conflict and advancing accountability are also threatened.

The International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – has successfully adjudicated numerous interstate disputes, demonstrating the power of legal mechanisms over hard power and military confrontation.

Efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account – from Nuremberg to the creation of UN ad hoc tribunals – paved the way for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its creation in 2002 sent a powerful message that mass atrocities as merely politics by other means must no longer receive a pass, that perpetrators must be held accountable, and that impunity can no longer be tolerated. The historic cultivation of these norms may be considered a crowning achievement as this normative transformation has not only awakened humanity’s consciousness regarding atrocities, but has also reshaped expectations of accountability for such grave crimes, and recast the very narrative and language with which we confront these vital questions.

And yet, those very powers that once shaped, and at least on the surface, nurtured these norms and institutions of international justice, now blatantly erode their integrity—whether by defiance, selective invocation, or politicisation. Thus, the edifice of collective restraint trembles, vulnerable to the machinations of those who prize unbridled power above principle.

To be sure, such regression diminishes the security and prosperity of all participants in the international system, irrespective of their size or influence.

Yet another grave assault on the very foundation of human rights advocacy lies in the entrenched “culture” of convenient indignation and performative empathy by states and self-serving and ideologically inclined actors alike.

Such expedient outrage and hollow sympathy erode the credibility of the pursuit of justice, undermining the universality of dignity for which we strive.

International law cannot be invoked à la carte, nor enforced with expedient selectivity.

Perhaps the greatest threat to international justice is not just outright opposition from ill-wishers but indifference and arbitrary application. The contrasting global reactions to different theatres of conflict in the past decade alone lay bare the hypocrisy that undermines faith in the universality and effectiveness of international law.

When our compassion is contingent upon political expedience, convenience or dictated by the fleeting spotlight of media attention or social media clickbait, we betray the fundamental, universal principle at the heart of human dignity.

Just as questionable are those who conveniently brandish the language of human rights not as “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, but as a tactical instrument of lawfare deployed against political adversaries. Such deceptive tactics not only trivialise the suffering of victims but can also fuel and perpetuate the very conditions that enable even graver human rights abuses. Indeed, ancient wisdom bears counsel: “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”. In this environment, smaller states and middle powers, in particular, cannot afford passivity. They must coordinate with strategic clarity and act with resolve to defend and reinforce a rules-based global system anchored in real and principled commitment to international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Perspective is important. The Western world, even when considered as a whole, comprises about 11 to 15 percent of the global population; the remaining 85 to 89 percent of humanity resides beyond it.

In a century increasingly defined by multipolarity, the convergent interests of the so-called Global North and Global South in safeguarding peace and stability within – and one hopes beyond – their respective spheres of influence must rise above the complacencies and double standards that have long underwritten the status quo.

True advocacy demands courage – to uphold and apply the law equally and impartially, even when doing so is uncomfortable, unpopular, or personally costly. It is the discipline to defend rights not only when they align with powerful interests, or “tribal” and prevailing sentiments but wherever justice demands it.

The legitimacy and potency of international justice are also fundamentally anchored in ethical leadership and an unwavering fidelity to principle. It is incumbent upon the stewards of international institutions, courts and tribunals to embody integrity, impartiality, and steadfast dedication to their mandates. When these ethical foundations are shaken or compromised, the repercussions are deep and lasting: public confidence disintegrates, victims suffer renewed injustice, adversaries are emboldened, and the quest for justice is dealt a blow. The character and courage of those at the helm are not mere virtues, but the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of international justice stands.

This is our clarion call: should we permit the foundations of international law to erode—whether through selective justice, passive indifference, or the cynical calculus of unprincipled politics—the world would slip once more into the shadows of anarchy and chaos.

We cannot yield to a world order defined by unchecked aggression, the erosion of sovereign borders under predation, and the unravelling of hard-won international norms. To acquiesce to such decline is to legitimise disorder as a governing principle, invite instability, normalise coercion, and accelerate a descent into systematic violence.

The cost would be borne by societies worldwide, in shattered security, fractured institutions, and immeasurable human suffering.

It is our shared responsibility to avert this regression.

By steadfastly upholding international law, nations around the world do more than safeguard their own futures; they erect barriers against the reckless impulses of would-be aggressors, protecting all – including the aggressors themselves – from the dire consequences of unfettered conflict.

Indifference is not an option. Wilful blindness is complicity.

In standing in firm defence of international law, we are not only enforcing norms – we are shaping the trajectory of our civilisation and honouring the enduring promise of humanity itself.

The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet triumph – a beacon guiding our gradual rise from unbridled brute force towards greater order, justice, and civilisation.

We must never allow the law to fall silent, for it stands as humanity’s foremost defender.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has offered an apology to neighbouring countries that have been subjected to Tehran’s retaliatory strikes since the United States and Israel launched a military offensive on the country.

But Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) expressed its disapproval of the president’s remarks on Saturday, warning neighbouring countries that Tehran would continue attacks if US and Israel used their territory to attack Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran is not going to stop attacks while Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, underscored Tehran’s right to self-defence.

Iran’s leadership has been sending mixed messages about its attacks on neighbouring countries in the Gulf region. On Saturday and Sunday, more Iranian strikes were reported. On Saturday, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they were attacked.

So why is Iran sending mixed messages to Gulf countries? How should its statements be interpreted?

What have Iranian leaders said?

In a recorded message on Saturday, Pezeshkian pledged to halt attacks against neighbouring countries unless an attack on Iran originated from their soil.

“I personally apologise to neighbouring countries that were attacked by Iran. Our commanders, leaders and loved ones lost their lives due to the brutal aggression that took place, and our armed forces are heroes who gave their lives to defend our territorial integrity,” he said without specifying which countries he was referring to.

“We didn’t intend to violate neighbouring countries’ [territory]. As I have said many times, they are our brothers. We stand with these ones we love in the region,” he added.

Shortly after Pezeshkian’s apology, the IRGC weighed in and said the armed forces of Iran “once again declare that they respect the interests and national sovereignty of neighbouring countries and, up to this point, have committed no aggression against them”.

“However, should the previous hostile actions continue, all military bases and interests of criminal America and the fake Zionist regime on land, at sea, and in the air across the region will be considered primary targets and will come under the powerful and crushing strikes of the mighty armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” an IRGC statement added.

Pezeshkian later clarified on X that Iran had not in fact attacked any of its neighbours but rather “targeted US military bases, facilities, and installations in the region”.

Late on Saturday, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, Ali Larijani, echoed the IRGC’s message and said: “When the enemy attacks us from bases in the region, we respond – and we will continue to respond.”

“This is our right and a standing policy. Regional countries must either prevent the US from using their territory against Iran, or we will have no choice but to do it ourselves,” he added.

On Sunday morning with attacks across the Gulf continuing, Pezeshkian said his remarks on Saturday were misinterpreted by “the ⁠enemy that seeks to sow division ⁠with neighbours”.

According to Iranian state media, the president reiterated that Iran wants good relations with “the brotherly neighbouring countries” but has been forced to respond to attacks coming from the territories of other countries.

He stressed, however, that this response does not mean there is a dispute with those countries.

“Iran stands strong against those who attack it and will respond with strength,” he said.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on Sunday emphasising “that Iran’s defensive operations against US military bases and installations in the region should by no means be construed as enmity or hostility towards the countries of the region”.

Khalid al-Jaber, executive director of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs in Doha, says different Iranian officials have sent several “contradictory” messages to countries in the region.

“We don’t know which one is true. We don’t think now, in war, that Iran is going to stop attacking some infrastructure in the Gulf,” al-Jaber told Al Jazeera, citing the attack on the water desalination plant in Bahrain a proof of that.

“Since the attack on Ayatollah Khamenei, it seems like there is no institute or a person or leadership we can talk to, or we can make a deal with, to try to understand what their perspective is, what their point of view is,” he said.

How should Iran’s messages be interpreted?

According to Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, Pezeshkian’s apology was overtaken by the Revolutionary Guard’s dominance.

“Political figures in Iran are responsible for running state affairs and nonstrategic affairs. But when it comes to strategic affairs, such as the country’s foreign and security policies, politicians don’t have a say, including the president, who, according to the constitution, is the number two in charge. This is a very well-known fact in Iran,” Serdar said.

The centre of power lies with the office of the supreme leader and with the IRGC, even during peacetime, he added.

On Sunday, Serdar said Iranians were interpreting Pezeshkian’s statement that his remarks had been misconstrued as one not meant for Gulf countries but instead for Azerbaijan and Turkiye.

“Azerbaijan because of the ethnic tensions. There are tens of thousands of Azeri [people] living in Iran, so an attack on them could backfire, and for Turkiye, it is a NATO member,” he said.

Azerbaijan has sought Iran’s apology after a drone attack targeted its autonomous Nakhchivan exclave on Thursday. Tehran, however, has insisted that it was not behind the attack.

On Wednesday, Turkiye’s Ministry of National Defence said a ⁠ballistic missile fired from ⁠Iran towards Turkish airspace had been intercepted and destroyed by NATO. But Iran’s ⁠armed forces have also denied firing ⁠any missile towards Turkish territory.

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Pezeshkian’s occasional off-key remarks have underscored his limited political instincts and experience in navigating high-stakes moments.

“But in wartime, rhetorical missteps by civilian officials are ultimately beside the point: The only voice that truly matters is the IRGC’s,” he added.

How has the Gulf reacted?

After an apology and threats from Iranian officials, strikes on countries across the Gulf have continued.

On Sunday, an Iranian drone attack caused material damage to a water desalination plant in Bahrain, its Ministry of Interior said.

That came a day after Araghchi said the US attacked a desalination plant on Qeshm Island off southern Iran, setting a “precedent”. There has been no immediate comment from Iran since Bahrain’s statement. A majority of Gulf countries depend largely on desalinated water for their inhabitants’ consumption.

Also on Saturday, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE reported incoming missiles and drones in their territories. On Sunday, Kuwait said two Ministry of Interior personnel were killed while on duty and attacks on its international airport and social security office caused fires.

Saudi Arabia said Sunday that an attack on Riyadh’s diplomatic quarter was foiled and several drones were downed in its airspace.

On Sunday, the Gulf Cooperation Council said Iran’s continued attacks against Bahrain and Kuwait are “dangerous acts of aggression” that threaten regional security and stability. The bloc comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

So far, countries in the Gulf have intercepted and destroyed most of the Iranian missiles and drones but have not yet launched strikes against Tehran.

Vaez told Al Jazeera that the Gulf states can certainly retaliate but that is likely to lead to even more aggressive Iranian retaliation.

“Siding with Israel to bomb another Muslim state would also entail political consequences for the Gulf states,” he added.

How has the US reacted?

After the Iranian president’s apology on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Iran has surrendered to its neighbours.

“Iran is no longer the ‘Bully of the Middle East,’ they are, instead, ‘THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST,’ and will be for many decades until they surrender or, more likely, completely collapse!” Trump posted.

“Siding with Israel to bomb another muslim state would also entail political consequences for the Gulf states,” he added.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday, Hamidreza Gholamzadeh, director of the Iranian think tank Diplo House, said Trump’s interpretation of Pezeshkian’s comments as a “surrender” is “totally false”.

Gholamzadeh said Iran is asking its neighbours “that they stop cooperating with the United States or the Israeli regime and do not allow them to use their land or their airspace to attack Iran”, describing the request as something “very normal” and “legal”.

The US and Israel continue to strike Iran, hitting oil storage depots and refining facilities for the first time.

The United States and Israel are continuing large-scale strikes on Iran, including an attack on an oil depot on Saturday, as the conflict has widened to include the Gulf region as well as Lebanon and Iraq.

Iran has said the US will pay for waging war and continued its retaliatory strikes on Israel and US military assets in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, despite Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian promising on Saturday to halt attacks on Gulf states as long as their territories were not used to attack Iran.

Here is where things stand on day nine of the war:

In Iran

• Military attacks and rising casualties: The US and Israel have continued large-scale strikes on Iran and struck oil storage depots and refining facilities for the first time in the country. Late on Saturday, local media captured footage of a massive fire raging at the Shehran oil depot on the outskirts of Tehran. The Israeli military claimed responsibility for striking fuel storage and related sites it alleges are affiliated with the Iranian armed forces. At least 1,332 people have been killed since Israel and the US launched attacks on February 28.
• US demands: President Donald Trump continued with his demand for an “unconditional surrender” from Iran. Late on Saturday, he stated that the war would continue for “a little while” but stressed that Washington was not looking “to settle with Tehran”.
• Maritime threats and movements: The Iranian military confirmed that the Strait of Hormuz remains open, but it explicitly stated that it would target any US or Israeli ships attempting to pass through. On Saturday, when asked by journalists about the lack of traffic through the strait, Trump said it was the choice of the ships and claimed that Washington has “wiped out” Iran’s navy.
• Relations with neighbours: President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated that Tehran wants good relations with the brotherly neighbouring countries, stating that the enemy is trying to create divisions. Pezeshkian said his remarks were “misinterpreted by the ⁠enemy that seeks to sow division ⁠with neighbours”, state TV reported on Sunday. His comments came as countries across the Gulf region reported drone strikes from Iran.
• Iran’s new leadership: Ayatollah Mohammad-Mahdi Mirbagheri, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, hinted that a decision on a successor to the slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was near. In a video posted by the Fars news agency on Telegram, Mirbagheri said “great efforts to determine the leadership” had been made and that “a decisive and unanimous opinion” had been reached.
• War crimes: Human Rights Watch said the attack on a primary school in southern Iran that killed at least 160 people, many of them schoolchildren, should be investigated as a war crime. Al Jazeera’s investigation has also found that the targeting of the school was likely “deliberate”, while The New York Times reported that the strike may have been carried out by the US.
• Intelligence report: A report conducted by the US National Intelligence Council found that a “large-scale” US-led assault on Iran was unlikely to topple the country’s government, according to The Washington Post. The report also described the prospect of Iran’s fragmented opposition taking control of the country as “unlikely”.
• Oil trade: The war has roiled global markets, and oil prices have hit multiyear highs, with the Strait of Hormuz effectively shut. In one week of the war, Brent crude oil price climbed 27 percent, the biggest weekly gain since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

In Gulf nations

• Bahrain: An Iranian drone attack caused material damage to a water desalination plant in Bahrain, the country’s Ministry of Interior said. This comes a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US attacked a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island in southern Iran, setting a “precedent”. There was no immediate comment from Iran following Bahrain’s statement. The majority of the Gulf countries largely depend on desalinated water for their inhabitants’ consumption.
• Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE: The three countries reported incoming missiles and drones in their territories, despite the Iranian president’s assurance of no attacks on neighbouring countries. Kuwait said two border security personnel were killed while on duty, and said attacks on its international airport and social security office also caused fires.
• UAE: The death toll from Iran’s attacks on the United Arab Emirates has risen to four, according to a statement from the Gulf country’s defence ministry.
• Saudi Arabia: It said an attack on Riyadh’s diplomatic quarter was foiled and several drones were downed in its airspace.
• Gulf Cooperation Council: The GCC said Iran’s continued attacks against Bahrain and Kuwait are “dangerous acts of aggression” that threaten regional security and stability. The bloc comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
• Aviation and evacuation updates: Following significant regional airspace closures and flight cancellations, Qatar’s Hamad international airport partially resumed air navigation via dedicated “emergency routes”. Qatar Airways operated special flights from London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Frankfurt and Bangkok to Doha on Sunday. According to the airport’s website, all of those flights landed safely.

In Israel

• Iranian strikes: The Israeli military said Iran launched several missiles towards Israel. Air raid sirens were activated in southern Israel, including in the Negev Desert.
• Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the latest attack as the “27th wave of Operation True Promise”.

In the US

• Timeline of the war: President  Trump said the war would continue for “a little” while, and that it was going “unbelievably good” for the US military. The White House has said the campaign may last four to six weeks.
• US casualties: The caskets of the six American service members killed in the retaliatory Iranian strikes against the US arrived in the US. Trump presided over the arrival ceremony of the slain soldiers as commander-in-chief of the US military. He described their deaths as a “very sad day” for the Americans.
• Pentagon chief threat: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a new threat to Iran. “If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation, and we will kill you,” he said on X.
• Nuclear stockpile: Axios reported that the US and Israel have discussed the possibility of deploying special forces to seize Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The news outlet said the mission would likely take place “at a later stage” of the war.

In Lebanon, Iraq

• Israeli forces bombed a hotel in downtown Beirut, killing at least four people and wounding 10 others. The Israeli military said it struck “key commanders in the Quds Force’s Lebanon Corps” who were operating in Beirut.
• Early on Sunday, Israel carried out a raid on the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital.
• Israel threatened the residents of Arnoun, Yohmor, Zrariyeh East and Zrariyeh West villages in southern Lebanon with an imminent attack, ordering them to flee north of Nabatieh governorate immediately.
• Hezbollah said it targeted Israeli forces in the town of Marba in southern Lebanon.
• Growing numbers of residents have fled areas, including Tyre and Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahiyeh. Schools in Beirut are now being used as shelters.
• Kurdish Peshmerga forces shot down a drone over the Kurdish area of Sulaimaniyah in northern Iraq amid a series of aerial attacks on the region, according to news outlet Rudaw.
• Trump said he did not want to make the war “more complex than it already is” by allowing the Kurds to join the war. Earlier, multiple publications had reported that Trump was in active talks with Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish groups, and that Washington had hoped to use them to spur a popular uprising.
• Iraqi Brigadier General Haider al-Kharki has said neither Iraqi forces nor members of the regional Kurdish Peshmerga forces have crossed into Iran since the US-Israel war on the country started.