Was the US-Israel-led war on Iran inevitable? If so, why? The bitter acrimony between Iran and Israel, Tehran’s potential nuclear buildup, and US President Donald Trump’s idiosyncrasies are the most commonly cited factors. But there are deeper issues that warrant serious introspection to understand the conditions that led to this mind-boggling catastrophe.
The United Nations was founded in 1945, following the devastating losses of World War II, on the premise of “never again,” and its primary mission was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” It was largely the US and Europe that drafted the UN Charter, the laws of war, and the elaborate machinery of alliances and treaties. The basic principle underlying these documents was that rules apply equally to all nations, big or small. For decades, those rules did real work. They did not stop every war, but they made the worst wars rarer and gave weaker states some protection against being bombed at will by anyone mightier.
That order has been weakened for years by Washington’s own conduct. The 2003 invasion of Iraq on fabricated pretexts, the open disregard for international courts whose jurisdiction it refuses to recognise, and the serial withdrawal from treaties when they became inconvenient have all eroded the credibility of a “rules-based order” envisioned by the philosophy underlying the UN’s formation.
Let’s look at Europe’s role in this erosion. It has long been regarded as a place of ethical conscience and liberal thought, founded on the spirit of the Renaissance, an era that championed humanism, free inquiry, and the celebration of human potential. Yet, its deeds no longer support that image. First, there is the unfinished business of European colonialism. Britain, France, Belgium and others carved up the Middle East, Africa and Asia for their own benefit, drew borders that served extraction rather than the people living there, and largely failed to follow their withdrawal with anything resembling a sincere reckoning. There is no truth commission on the scale of those attempted by some post-conflict societies, no systematic reparations, and no serious apology that the affected nations regard as adequate. The grievances caused by colonialism across the Middle East did not heal; they metastasised into distrust of Western intentions, which shape how Tehran and much of the region read every American and European statement to this day.
Second is Europe’s blind adherence to Washington’s line, regardless of its legal or moral footing. The clearest recent illustration is the stark contrast between its actions in Gaza and Ukraine. Some governments issued statements deploring civilian deaths in Gaza, glossing over what many human rights organisations and the UN have termed an outright genocide. Most European countries continued arms exports to Israel despite their indiscriminate use in Gaza.
On the other hand, Europe takes a strong, principled stand on the Ukraine war because Russia’s invasion violates the UN Charter and international law. Almost all European countries provide ongoing military support to Ukraine, including weapons. This double standard and the gap between Europe’s rhetoric and actions have seriously eroded its moral standing and the rules-based order it claims to uphold.
Finally, there was the missed opportunity from 1989 to 1991, when the Soviet Union’s collapse offered the West a rare chance to establish a lasting, peaceful relationship among the great military powers. But Nato, in which Europe has a large stake, let this opportunity pass and continued to expand, bringing it close to Moscow’s doorstep. It chose dominance over peaceful coexistence, leading to three decades of resentment, mistrust and, eventually, the war in Ukraine.
The present world is in a state where an enforcer no longer enforces the rules on itself. At the same time, there is a rising counterweight in China that offers trade, infrastructure, technology, and diplomatic cover to countries willing to move away from the Western sphere of influence. To make matters worse, the cost of precision weapons, drones, and missiles has fallen to unprecedented levels, so much so that a smaller power can now sustain a grinding war against the mightiest military. This is an ideal setting for war to become inevitable, a situation that did not exist even two decades ago.
Thus, the question of why the Iran war happened cannot be answered by pointing only to the existential hostility between Iran and Israel or to the broader geopolitical volatility in the Middle East. It happened because the guardrails that might once have made an unprovoked strike on a sovereign state diplomatically and politically costly have been worn down by the very powers that built them. The continued use of double standards, the glaring gap between Europe’s stated principles and actions, and the security architecture in Europe and the Middle East, built on victory rather than reconciliation, have all contributed to a situation in which such wars are bound to become inevitable.
The lessons that the Iran war offers are aplenty. But would the world leaders care to listen?
Dr. Sayeed Ahmed is Lead Consultant at Sydney-based consultancy Tasman Analytics.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
