The Middle East in flames: the erosion of international conflict…

As of March 9, 2026, the Middle East is facing its most serious crisis in generations: a direct armed conflict between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, now in its second week.

What began on February 28, 2026, with coordinated air strikes – eliminating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials – has escalated into sustained military operations against Iranian nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, energy resources and command structures.

Retaliatory Iranian missile and drone barrages hit Israeli territory and US bases across the Gulf, while Hezbollah’s activation reignited intense exchanges along the Lebanese-Israeli border, displacing hundreds of thousands and causing hundreds of civilian casualties.

Recent developments highlight the widening scope of the conflict: Israel has conducted new attacks against Tehran’s oil depots and the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard; Iran has named Mojtaba Khamenei as its new supreme leader amid pledges of allegiance from military and political figures; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned of an impending “energy war” following attacks on Iranian refineries and storage sites. Casualties mount rapidly: Iran reports over 1,200 deaths from the initial attacks, with civilian infrastructure affected (including schools and desalination plants), as US forces confirm soldier casualties and global oil prices rise to unsustainable levels, threatening economic stability around the world.

This escalation highlights deep fractures in the post-1945 international legal order, particularly in the United Nations framework for preserving peace.

The prohibition on the use of force and its apparent violation
The cornerstone of modern international law remains Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which obliges member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”.

The exceptions are narrowly limited: Security Council authorization under Chapter VII (Article 42) or the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense against armed attack under Article 51.

The joint US-Israeli attacks on February 28 occurred during indirect diplomatic negotiations mediated by Oman, with preparations for further talks in Vienna.

No Security Council resolution authorized the action, and no imminent armed attack by Iran justified pre-emptive force under the prevailing interpretation of Article 51. Legal experts, including UN special rapporteurs and scholars, condemned the attacks as a violation of the prohibition on aggression, lacking necessity and proportionality.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly stated on February 28 that the attacks “wasted an opportunity for diplomacy” and undermined international peace and security. UN human rights experts also declared the operations illegal, violating sovereign equality, territorial integrity and the duty to resolve disputes peacefully.

Iran’s retaliatory actions – invoking Article 51 self-defense – have targeted military targets but have extended to civilian areas in the Gulf states and Israel, raising concerns about indiscriminate attacks prohibited by international humanitarian law (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, customary law). Attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools (considered serious violations by the United Nations), require impartial investigation and accountability.

The United Nations: a forum paralyzed by division
The emergency session of the Security Council on 28 February produced condemnations from the Secretary-General and calls for restraint, but no binding resolutions or enforcement mechanisms. Veto powers fractured the consensus: the United States defended the operations as protecting Israeli security; Russia and China have condemned them as aggression; European members urged de-escalation without explicit attribution.

This reflects historical patterns: vetoes have long hindered accountability in conflicts in the Middle East, making the Council more of a mirror of divisions between great powers than an effective guardian of peace.

While the UN excels at humanitarian coordination and documenting violations, its political arm lacks coercive tools in the absence of P5 unity. The organization’s warnings about civilian harm and nuclear security risks remain non-binding rhetoric in the face of unilateral action by major powers.

Paths to Restoration: Dominion Diplomacy
Sustainable peace requires an immediate cessation of hostilities, a verifiable reduction and a return to negotiations. Practical steps include:

The urgent need for mediation through countries such as Oman, Qatar or Egypt is essential to stop ongoing attacks and the activation of proxy forces. In parallel, there is a critical need to reinvigorate nuclear diplomacy, leveraging established pre-escalation structures to engage with Iran’s nuclear program through verified and peaceful channels.

Furthermore, ensuring humanitarian access and the protection of civilians must remain a priority, in strict compliance with international humanitarian law. To promote stability in the region, it is imperative to provide strong incentives, including reconstruction aid and sanctions relief conditional on moderation, while simultaneously managing and containing existing proxy networks.

The UN could facilitate monitoring or host a conference if consensus emerges, but progress depends on bilateral/multilateral commitments supported by credible deterrence.

History shows that military rule breeds resentment and perpetual cycles of violence; Lasting stability comes from negotiated compromises that respect core interests while enforcing red lines.

The current conflagration, which threatens global energy, migration and security, requires parties with influence to prioritize diplomacy. Otherwise we risk an unmanageable regional war, with repercussions far beyond the Middle East.

The international community must reaffirm the principles of the Charter: force is not a substitute for law. Only through dialogue, responsibility and mutual moderation is it possible to put out the flames and restore a just peace.

*Ajulo is a senior Nigerian lawyer and Justice and Peace advocate

Related