Starting on 28th February 2026, the United States of America working hand-in-hand with Israel have been striking at Tehran with heavy military artillery in an operation that has come to be dubbed “Epic Fury.” Less than a day in, several high ranking officials in Iran’s establishment had already lost their lives most notably, the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Gen Mohammad Pakpour, the Defence Minister Brig Gen Aziz Nasirzadeh, and the Defence Council secretary Ali Shamkhani.
With the Red Crescent reporting that at least 200 Iranians have already lost their lives too and more than 700 injured, the US-Israel assault has undoubtedly raised questions pertaining to its legitimacy under international law.
Per the United Nations Charter (Article 2(4)), it is established that states are to refrain from the use of force targeting other sovereigns. What Washington has sought to do then, is argue that its mission in Iran is covered by the exception of self-defence provided for in the said instrument’s Article 51. In their public statements, they have described the attacks as “pre-emptive.”
In the history of warfare however, one will hardly find a party who upon resorting to violence does not bother to justify their conduct as warranted. Consequently, standards have been devised overtime for the international community to test claims of this nature. For self-defence, as Marko Milanovic a public international law scholar at the University of Reading has explained, the party seeking to rely on it must provide unambiguous evidence either of the harm already caused or destruction likely to have been caused if the measure in question had not been taken. In other words, they cannot rely on speculation or generalizations.
Unfortunately, all that President Trump has said so far falls short of this bar. The American leader for instance, has purported that Tehran is pursuing development of Nuclear weaponry something that is not only denied by the Middle Eastern nation but is also disputed by third parties. The International Energy Atomic Agency thus, has severally retained that there is no information supportive of Washington’s assertions. Oman’s Foreign Minister who also doubles as the chief mediator of the US-Iran talks coming immediately before all hell broke loose has equally confirmed that Iran had committed to “never, ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb.”
What these developments appear to be depicting then is but an extension of aggression that has come to be the hallmark of Trump 2.0. Think here about the tariffs regime that even his own Supreme Court declared illegal, the threats to forcefully takeover Greenland and Canada, the invasion of Venezuela etc. If the world does not wake up to the new reality in time, we risk plunging ourselves in a global order ruled by the laws of the jungle where survival for the fittest becomes the order of the day.
In response to this state of affairs, one of the most convincing alternatives is the Global Security Initiative (GSI) put forward by President Xi Jinping of China in 2022 at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference. In part, the GSI can be understood as a modification of Beijing’s broad approach to foreign policy to fit the needs of international peace. Three of its six core tenets thus (i.e. “respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries”, “peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation”, and “taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously”) directly replicate the principles of “win-win” and “mutual respect” that the global power has championed elsewhere.
At the same time, GSI seeks to reimagine norms devised many years ago in order to suit the changing times. Emphasis on “abiding by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter” is one such example the other being “commitment to the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.” The latter also best understood as the principle of indivisible security (IS) goes back to the Cold War particularly upon the entry into force of the Helsinki Final Act. What the Communist Party of China (CCP) has done for IS is to contend that a country’s security interests are not only inseparable from those of her immediate neighbours but also those of the rest of the world just as much. This becomes especially important given how much globalization has taken effect.
Crucially, GSI has proven itself to be thorough including through Beijing’s position papers on Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestine war as well as mediation that the CCP has done between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, Fighting factions in Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia etc. If the world could build on this momentum, there is a good chance that the voices of hegemony and repression will be defeated.
Joshua Kingdom is a Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.