A war without rules

Even wars, which imply disorder, have rules. And that’s because without shared expectations, conflict becomes unmanageable. A war where everything is allowed destroys not only its targets but eventually its authors.
That basic assumption has been fatally ignored in the ongoing American and Israeli war against Iran. The violations that are being committed today by all sides in the Middle East go beyond violation of any particular agreement on international humanitarian law or any provision in the United Nations Charter. What we are seeing rather is the collapse of an entire structure of expectations that, since 1945, has kept modern conflicts within limits.
Consider what has already happened. On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel launched targeted strikes aimed at decimating Iran’s political and military leadership—even as Iranian diplomats were meeting American emissaries at the negotiating table in Geneva. The strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and members of his immediate family, and dozens of senior officials simultaneously.
International humanitarian law has a term for this: perfidy—the deliberate exploitation of a peace process as cover for assassination. It is among the oldest prohibitions in the customary laws of war, and it was violated by Israel and the US in broad daylight.
Iran’s retaliation has been equally oblivious of limits. Its missiles and drones have struck American military bases across the Gulf region. Thirteen of these are now uninhabitable, their personnel forced to relocate to hotels and office buildings in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, with six service members killed in a single strike in Kuwait.
Iran argues that these bases, all located in neighboring countries, served as launch platforms for the Feb. 28 attacks, a claim that carries some legal weight. But Tehran has gone further: it has, in addition, proceeded to bomb embassies, which is not permitted under international law even in wartime. It has effectively blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, denying passage to oil and gas tankers and commercial ships from nations entirely uninvolved in the conflict.
Oil prices are threatening to rise to $200 a barrel. Asia and Europe are facing a devastating energy crisis. The war’s impact has radiated outward in ways neither party can control. Underlying all of this is a conflict that should never have begun in the way it did. The UN Charter permits the use of force only in response to an actual or imminent armed attack. No such attack had occurred, and America’s mercurial President Donald Trump alone assumed the power to determine what was an imminent threat. Iran’s supreme leader was slain not on the battlefield but in a meeting, while his diplomats were negotiating in good faith.
And what is happening to US diplomacy and the professional corps of trained officials that used to constitute the State Department? Rather than dispatching experienced diplomats adept in the protocols that make negotiation possible, Washington had sent President Trump’s personal emissaries: Steve Witkoff, a friend, and Jared Kushner, a son-in-law.
This did not escape Iran’s notice. It has subsequently refused to seriously consider any US overture to negotiate. Its foreign minister has said plainly that America’s recent 15-point offer for ending the war is not negotiation but a transmission of messages through intermediaries.
When the system of peacemaking itself loses its professional tools, the last channel through which this conflict might be resolved becomes unreliable. As we have seen, each of these violations feeds the next. This is the nature of spiraling norm collapse: what may appear as separate breaches eventually come together as a single, self-reinforcing breakdown.
Which brings us to where this normative collapse leads. What happens when war sheds its rules one by one until none remain? When treachery replaces negotiation, when heads of state are treated as legitimate targets, when embassies are bombed and international waterways are closed, and untrained personal emissaries take the place of professional diplomats, what follows is not war in any recognizable sense but a primitive clash of forces. In such a void, there is no mechanism for de-escalation.
The nuclear threshold—the last unspoken norm standing—is eroding in plain sight. Israel and the US possess the weapons. And Iran is drawing the only lesson this war makes available: that its 460 kilograms of uranium, enriched to near-weapons grade, is not a bargaining chip but the minimum condition of national survival.
Something of incalculable value is being lost in this war: a world in which the use of nuclear weapons is not a rational choice to be made by any state that feels threatened. To name this loss is the most urgent duty of anyone who still believes that words can matter.
—————-

Facts Only

The United States and Israel launched targeted strikes on February 28 against Iran’s political and military leadership.
The strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, members of his family, and dozens of senior officials.
Iranian diplomats were meeting with American emissaries in Geneva at the time of the strikes.
Iran retaliated by striking American military bases in the Gulf region, rendering 13 bases uninhabitable.
Six U.S. service members were killed in a single strike in Kuwait.
Iran has bombed embassies and blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting commercial shipping.
Oil prices are rising toward $200 a barrel due to the conflict.
The U.S. sent personal emissaries—Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—to negotiations instead of professional diplomats.
Iran has refused to engage in serious negotiations, dismissing a U.S. 15-point offer as non-negotiable.
Iran possesses 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade.
The UN Charter permits force only in response to an actual or imminent armed attack, which had not occurred prior to the strikes.

Executive Summary

A conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has escalated into a war characterized by the abandonment of established norms of international conduct. On February 28, the U.S. and Israel conducted targeted strikes in Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his family, and senior officials—an act described as "perfidy" under international law, as it occurred while Iranian diplomats were engaged in negotiations in Geneva. Iran retaliated by striking U.S. military bases across the Gulf, rendering 13 uninhabitable and killing six service members, while also bombing embassies and blockading the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global oil supplies. The conflict has destabilized energy markets, with oil prices threatening to reach $200 a barrel, and strained diplomatic channels, as Iran has dismissed U.S. negotiation attempts, citing the use of untrained personal emissaries like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The erosion of diplomatic norms and the potential for nuclear escalation—with Iran enriching uranium to near-weapons grade—highlight the breakdown of post-1945 conflict constraints. The war’s origins trace to a disputed interpretation of "imminent threat," with no prior armed attack justifying the initial strikes under the UN Charter.

Full Take

This narrative presents a stark vision of normative collapse in international relations, where the erosion of long-standing rules of war and diplomacy accelerates into a self-reinforcing cycle of escalation. The strongest version of this argument is its emphasis on the systemic unraveling of post-1945 constraints: the violation of perfidy, the targeting of heads of state, the bombing of embassies, and the replacement of professional diplomacy with personal emissaries. These breaches are framed not as isolated incidents but as symptoms of a broader breakdown, where each violation justifies the next, culminating in the potential normalization of nuclear weapons as a rational response to existential threat.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (the framing of "imminent threat" as a subjective justification for preemptive strikes), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (the shift from specific legal violations to a broader claim of systemic collapse, making the argument harder to refute).
The root cause appears to be a paradigm of unilateralism and the erosion of institutional trust. The narrative assumes that the post-WWII order relied on shared expectations of restraint, and that its collapse stems from actors prioritizing short-term tactical gains over long-term stability. Historically, this echoes the lead-up to World War I, where entangling alliances and norm violations spiraled into uncontrollable conflict. The implications are dire: without mechanisms for de-escalation, states may conclude that nuclear deterrence is the only viable survival strategy, further destabilizing global security.
Who benefits? The narrative suggests no clear winner—only mutual destruction and collateral damage to global energy markets and diplomatic institutions. The costs are borne by civilians facing energy crises, professional diplomats sidelined by amateurism, and the broader international system losing its capacity to mediate conflict.
Bridge questions: What alternative frameworks for conflict resolution exist when traditional diplomacy fails? How might smaller states navigate a world where great powers disregard established norms? Would the reintroduction of professional diplomats and third-party mediators alter the trajectory of this conflict?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would likely emphasize the inevitability of collapse to justify preemptive aggression or to undermine trust in international institutions. The actual content aligns with this pattern by framing the conflict as a no-win scenario, but it stops short of advocating for specific policy responses, instead focusing on the structural failure. This suggests a cautionary rather than manipulative intent.