By Dr KAYODE AJULO, SAN

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

What commenced on February 28, 2026, as coordinated airstrikes—eliminating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials—has escalated into sustained military operations targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, energy assets, and command structures.

Retaliatory Iranian missile and drone barrages have struck Israeli territory and U.S. bases across the Gulf, while Hezbollah’s activation has reignited intense exchanges along the Lebanon-Israel border, displacing hundreds of thousands and claiming hundreds of civilian lives.

Recent developments underscore the conflict’s broadening scope: Israel has conducted fresh strikes on Tehran’s oil depots and Revolutionary Guard headquarters; Iran has named Mojtaba Khamenei as the 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 initial strikes, with civilian infrastructure (including schools and desalination plants) hit—while U.S. forces confirm soldier fatalities and global oil prices surge toward unsustainable levels, threatening economic stability worldwide.

This escalation exposes profound fractures in the post-1945 international legal order, particularly the United Nations framework designed to preserve peace.

The Prohibition on the Use of Force and Its Apparent Breach

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.”

Exceptions are narrowly circumscribed: authorization by the Security Council under Chapter VII (Article 42) or the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence against an armed attack under Article 51.

The joint U.S.-Israeli strikes of February 28 occurred amid ongoing 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 preemptive force under prevailing interpretations of Article 51. Legal experts, including UN Special Rapporteurs and scholars, have condemned the strikes 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 “squandered an opportunity for diplomacy” and undermined international peace and security. UN human rights experts further declared the operations unlawful, breaching sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and the duty to settle disputes peacefully.

Iran’s retaliatory actions—invoking Article 51 self-defence—targeted military objectives but extended to civilian areas in Gulf states and Israel, raising concerns of indiscriminate attacks prohibited under international humanitarian law (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, customary rules). Strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools (deemed grave violations by the UN), demand impartial investigations and accountability.

The United Nations: A Forum Paralyzed by Division

The Security Council’s emergency session on February 28 produced condemnations from the Secretary-General and calls for restraint but no binding resolution or enforcement mechanism. Veto powers fractured consensus: the U.S. defended the operations as protective of Israeli security; Russia and China condemned them as aggression; European members urged de-escalation without explicit attribution.

This mirrors historical patterns—vetoes have long stymied accountability in Middle East conflicts, rendering the Council more a mirror of great-power divisions than an effective guardian of peace.

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

Pathways to Restoration: Diplomacy Over Domination

Sustainable peace requires immediate cessation of hostilities, verifiable de-escalation, and return to negotiations. Practical steps include:

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

Moreover, ensuring humanitarian access and the protection of civilians must remain a priority, strictly adhering to international humanitarian law. To foster stability in the region, it is imperative to offer robust incentives, including reconstruction aid and sanctions relief conditioned on restraint, 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 backed by credible deterrence.

History demonstrates that military dominance breeds resentment and perpetual cycles of violence; enduring stability arises from negotiated compromises respecting core interests while enforcing red lines.

The current conflagration, threatening global energy, migration, and security, demands that parties with leverage prioritize diplomacy. Failure to do so risks an unmanageable regional war, with reverberations far beyond the Middle East.

The international community must reaffirm the Charter’s principles: force is not a substitute for law. Only through dialogue, accountability, and mutual restraint can the flames be extinguished and a just peace restored.

•Ajulo, OON, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and an Advocate for Justice and Peace.

Update news