The Death of Diplomacy, American and Israeli Thuggery and the Unraveling of the International Order
On a cold day in January 2017, Donald Trump stood at the gates of the White House and made a promise that resonated with a war-weary American public. He pledged to end the nation’s “endless wars,” to bring troops home, and to extricate the United States from the quagmires of the Middle East. It was a powerful, isolationist vision that helped propel him to the presidency. That promise now lies in ashes, scattered across the volatile landscape of West Asia. In a dramatic and reckless escalation that has shattered the remnants of international norms, the Trump administration, in close coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched an all-out war on Iran, culminating in the killing of its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This act of state-sanctioned assassination has transformed a already tense region into a tinderbox, and has laid bare a disturbing truth: under the guise of “America First,” the United States has morphed into a rogue superpower, willing to jettison diplomacy, international law, and human life in pursuit of its own narrow, imperial interests, with Israel as its eager and equally lawless partner.
The narrative spun by Washington and Tel Aviv is a familiar one: a “pre-emptive” war of self-defense against an imminent threat. But as is so often the case, the facts on the ground tell a radically different story. In the days leading up to the February 28th attack, there was no credible intelligence suggesting that Iran was preparing to launch an offensive against its neighbors or the West. On the contrary, Tehran was actively engaged in serious, mediated negotiations with Washington. Omani mediators had been shuttling between the two capitals, and on February 27, just hours before the missiles struck, Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr al-Busaidi, publicly stated that a deal was within reach. The framework of this agreement was based on a clear and verifiable commitment from Iran: it would not build a nuclear bomb and would not stockpile fissile material. Diplomacy was working. The path to de-escalation was open.
Then, in a single night of violence, that path was obliterated. American and Israeli missiles rained down on Iran, targeting not just military installations but the very leadership of the nation. The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, the head of state, is not an act of war in the traditional sense; it is an act of decapitation, a targeted killing of a nation’s sovereign authority. It is the kind of action that invites not just retaliation, but an unending cycle of vengeance. This is not the first time that diplomacy has been so callously overtaken by force. In 2018, President Trump unilaterally and triumphantly tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the carefully negotiated nuclear agreement that was widely regarded as a success in preventing an Iranian bomb. That act of diplomatic vandalism set the stage for years of escalating tensions. In June 2025, while Iran was once again negotiating, Israel launched a unilateral attack, triggering a brief but intense 12-day war. Each time, the party willing to negotiate in good faith is punished, and the party willing to use brute force is rewarded. This latest attack is not an exception to this pattern; it is its logical, and most dangerous, culmination.
The justification offered by President Trump—that this war is about bringing “freedom” to the Iranian people—is a grotesque piece of propaganda that insults the intelligence of the world. The United States has a long and sordid history of cozying up to the most repressive regimes on the planet, from the monarchies of the Persian Gulf to the military dictatorships of its backyard in Latin America. “Freedom” has never been a consistent principle of American foreign policy; it is a convenient slogan deployed when it suits strategic objectives. The notion that the Trump administration, which has shown open admiration for autocrats, is suddenly motivated by a deep concern for Iranian democracy is laughable. Nor has Washington ever shown any serious qualms about Israel’s systematic and long-documented crimes against the Palestinian people. The ongoing occupation, the expansion of illegal settlements, the blockade of Gaza, and the periodic bombardments that kill hundreds of civilians have never prompted the kind of “freedom” talk from Washington that is now being deployed for Iran. This hypocrisy reveals the true nature of the war: it is a war of choice, a war of expansion, launched to eliminate a regional adversary that refuses to be subservient, and to reshape the entire Middle East to suit the geostrategic interests of the American-Israeli axis.
The response from Iran, while predictable, only deepens the global crisis. Tehran has launched a barrage of missile and drone attacks targeting Israeli and American bases in the Persian Gulf and Jordan. These strikes, while less sophisticated than those of its adversaries, are designed to send a clear message: an attack on the homeland and the killing of its leader will not go unanswered. More worryingly, Iran has announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. As detailed in the previous analysis, this is a move with potentially catastrophic global economic consequences. The strait is the jugular of the world’s oil supply. Blocking it, or even significantly disrupting traffic through it, would send oil prices spiraling, triggering inflation, and potentially plunging the global economy into a recession. For nations like India, which depends on the strait for half its crude imports, the impact would be immediate and devastating. Iran is demonstrating that while it may not be able to match American and Israeli firepower in a conventional war, it has the power to inflict immense pain on the global system that supports them. This is the desperate logic of asymmetrical warfare.
This entire sordid episode represents a fundamental assault on the very idea of a rules-based international order. That order, however imperfect and often hypocritical, was built on the ashes of World War II with the premise that might does not make right. It established norms against the aggressive invasion of sovereign nations, against the assassination of foreign leaders, and for the peaceful resolution of disputes. The United States was one of the chief architects of this system. Under the current administration, it has become its primary gravedigger. By tearing up a negotiated nuclear deal, by assassinating a head of state, and by launching an aggressive war based on flimsy pretexts, the U.S. is sending a clear message to the world: international law is whatever the powerful say it is. This is a green light for other ambitious and aggressive nations to follow suit. Why should a rising power like China respect the sovereignty of a neighbor when the world’s sole superpower so flagrantly disregards it? Why should a nuclear-aspirant state like North Korea ever trust a diplomatic agreement when it sees the U.S. destroy one the moment it becomes inconvenient? The actions of Trump and Netanyahu do not just destabilize the Middle East; they destabilize the entire globe by shredding the normative fabric that restrains conflict.
The role of Benjamin Netanyahu in this calamity cannot be overstated. He is a leader who has built his political career on security and expansionism, and who is currently wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his actions in Gaza. The ICC’s indictment, while dismissed by Israel and the U.S., is a stain on his legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. By joining forces with Trump in this new war, he is not acting as a statesman seeking security for his people, but as an “expansionist ethnonationalist” trying to redraw the map of the region to his advantage. He sees a weakened and decapitated Iran as an opportunity to cement Israeli dominance, to further marginalize the Palestinians, and to silence the main state backer of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. His actions are not those of a leader seeking peace, but of a gambler willing to set the region on fire to consolidate his own power and legacy.
The international community now stands at a precipice. The fire is spreading. The assassination of a head of state is an escalation that cannot be walked back easily. Iran’s response, including the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, threatens global economic stability. The United States and Israel, the self-proclaimed defenders of the “free world,” have acted like rogue states, demonstrating a thuggish contempt for the very rules they expect others to follow. This war must be stopped. The alternative is a descent into a chaos where diplomacy is dead, international law is meaningless, and the only thing that matters is the reach of one’s missiles. The last vestiges of the rules-based order are being shredded. The question is whether there is enough sanity left in the world to step back from the brink before the fire consumes us all.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What was the state of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran immediately before the attack on February 28th?
A1: Contrary to claims of an imminent threat, Iran was actively engaged in serious, mediated negotiations with the United States through Oman. On February 27, just hours before the attack, Oman’s Foreign Minister publicly stated that a deal was “within reach.” This agreement was reportedly based on Iran’s commitment not to build a nuclear bomb or stockpile nuclear material. Diplomacy was progressing until it was abruptly shattered by the military strike.
Q2: According to the article, what is the real motivation behind the American-Israeli war on Iran, as opposed to the stated reasons?
A2: The article argues that the stated reasons—pre-emption and bringing “freedom” to Iranians—are false. It contends this is a “war of choice” with two main motivations: 1) To eliminate a regional adversary that refuses to be subservient to American and Israeli interests. 2) To reshape the Middle East to suit those interests. This is evidenced by U.S. alliances with other repressive regimes and its tolerance of Israeli actions against Palestinians, proving “freedom” is not a consistent principle.
Q3: How does the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei represent a breakdown of the international rules-based order?
A3: The assassination of a sovereign nation’s head of state by another country is a fundamental violation of international norms that have existed since World War II. It shreds the principle that nations should not aggressively attack or decapitate the leadership of other sovereign states. By acting in this way, the U.S. and Israel are signaling that international law is irrelevant and that might makes right, which sets a dangerous precedent for other aggressive nations around the world.
Q4: What is the global economic risk posed by Iran’s response to the attack?
A4: In retaliation, Iran has announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s crude oil passes. A sustained closure or significant disruption would cause global oil prices to skyrocket. This would lead to higher inflation worldwide and could trigger a global recession. For major oil importers like India, which gets half its crude through the strait, the economic impact would be immediate and devastating.
Q5: What role does the article ascribe to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in this conflict?
A5: The article portrays Netanyahu as an “expansionist ethnonationalist” who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. It argues he is using this conflict to seize the opportunity to eliminate Iran as a state backer of his regional adversaries (like Hezbollah and Hamas), to cement Israeli dominance, and to further marginalize the Palestinian cause, all to consolidate his own political power and legacy, regardless of the wider regional consequences.
