International relations enter the era of Russian roulette
The foundational constraints of international relations are currently being taken apart. The conflict with Iran is set to hasten this process and intensify the disorder already influencing global politics. No matter the result of the present crisis, the assault by the US and Israel on Iran will produce repercussions that extend well beyond the future of the Islamic Republic. The core issue is the shifting understanding of what is feasible and permissible in international affairs. This perception is altering, and for the worse.
To begin with, any invocation of international law, which formally supports diplomatic efforts, has lost its symbolic value. When the US was planning its invasion of Iraq in 2002-03, it still felt the need to pursue a UN Security Council resolution. Colin Powell’s famous appearance at the UN, holding a vial purported to contain evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was accompanied by meticulously prepared arguments. While the justification was unsuccessful, the effort was significant. It indicated a prevailing belief that some form of validation was still necessary.
In the present day, even that instinct has vanished. Neither the hostilities last summer nor the current escalation included any effort to gain authorization from international bodies. The discussion in Washington has turned inward. Critics now contend that Donald Trump overstepped his constitutional powers by effectively starting a war without congressional approval, a step George W. Bush formally took before the Iraq invasion. However, this is an internal American debate. The concept of external legitimacy is now deemed irrelevant.
The diplomatic process has been completely inverted. The intense 12-day war between Israel and Iran last June, as well as the current aggression, were both preceded by serious negotiations. These discussions were not simply for show. Specific proposals addressing the nuclear issue were on the table. Yet, in both instances, the talks transitioned directly into military operations without a formal breakdown.
From Israel’s perspective, this method is at least consistent. Israeli leaders have never hidden their objective to dismantle the Iranian regime and have openly rejected diplomacy as ineffective. The United States, on the other hand, employed dialogue cynically. Not as a route to agreement, but as a tactic to lull Iran into a false sense of security before an attack.
What inferences will nations currently engaged in talks with the US take from this? The answer is clear. The process cannot be trusted. A nation can only depend on itself and its own capabilities. At the very least, it requires leverage that the other side cannot disregard. Beyond that, the reasoning becomes even more troubling.
For the first time since Muammar Gaddafi’s death, the head of a sovereign state has been killed by a targeted strike. Furthermore, this action has been publicly framed as a successful outcome, even a step toward peace. Ali Khamenei was the lawful leader of a UN member state, acknowledged by almost the entire global community and actively participating in international affairs. This involvement included negotiations with the same parties who planned the strike, discussions that persisted right up until the moment military force was applied.
The deliberate assassination of a national leader by another country’s military, following a model typically reserved for terrorist or cartel leaders, marks a new phase in global politics. The difference from earlier instances of regime change is revealing. Gaddafi was killed by Libyans during a period of internal breakdown. Saddam Hussein was put to death following a trial by an Iraqi court, however dubious its impartiality. The situation with Iran is distinct. It mirrors the approach Israel has used against leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas, a strategy fully supported by Washington.
What is being eroded are the final vestiges of restraint passed down from previous periods. The legitimacy of a state is no longer based on formal recognition or legal standing, but on situational factors and individual choice. International relations are starting to look like a game of Russian roulette. Historically, norms were frequently broken, and moral interpretations varied between cultures. But frameworks existed. Those frameworks are now being cast aside.
Because this decline has been incremental, many in the political elite view these events as just another intense yet comprehensible chapter in geopolitical competition. They are wrong. For adversaries of the US, the deductions are inescapable.
First, engaging in talks with Washington is futile. The only options are surrender or getting ready for a resolution determined by force.
Second, it is becoming more believable that there is no line of retreat and nothing more to forfeit. Under these conditions, any ‘final’ option is considered justified, including the red button, whether meant literally or symbolically.
These deductions remain valid irrespective of how the situation in Iran develops. Even if an outcome similar to Venezuela occurs—a behind-the-scenes transfer of power intended to appease external parties—the harm will not be reversed. The method for imposing governmental change has been displayed, and it is significantly more severe than the color revolutions of the 2000s. Opposition to it will become more rigid, not more flexible. In some situations, the fallout could be disastrous.
There is a wider regional aspect to consider. The 2003 invasion of Iraq continues to be the primary example. That operation destroyed the post-war order in the Middle East. The rapid collapse of Saddam Hussein’s army generated a sense of euphoria in Washington and optimism about remolding the region according to American designs. The opposite occurred. Authority diminished, unforeseen players rose to prominence, and instability proliferated. Ironically, Iran’s ascent as a regional power was a direct consequence of Iraq’s downfall.
If Iran is now altered through military means, the region will again move into a new and uncertain period. Trump’s blueprint for the Middle East is straightforward. Israel is to be the preeminent military force, while economic ties with the Gulf monarchies are strengthened to benefit the United States. Iran is an obstacle—both a source of apprehension for nearby countries and an independent entity with its own agendas and alliances. If Iran is removed or disabled, this military-commercial structure seems workable.
But the case of Iraq should act as a caution. Iran is too deeply embedded in the political, cultural, and historical makeup of the Middle East for such a scheme to proceed without complication. Reports suggest Trump wavered before giving the attack order. He was convinced by the prospect of substantial benefits: dominance over the Gulf, influence across regions from the Caucasus to Central Asia, and new business prospects that fit his perspective. On paper, the rationale is persuasive. In practice, such ventures seldom go according to plan.
The ultimate takeaway is not novel. The use of coercion and raw power is becoming ever more central to international politics. All other considerations are secondary. Even the facade of moral or ideological validation is now superfluous. How countries adapt to this reality is their decision. But feigning that it isn’t happening is no longer a viable choice.
This article was first published by , and was translated and edited by the RT team