How The Israel-Iran Conflict Exposed The UN’s Irrelevance | Insight

Key Concepts:

• Israel-Iran conflict
• Operation Midnight Hammer
• Presidential war powers
• UN Charter (Article 2, Section 4; Article 51)
• Preemptive self-defense
• International Court of Justice (ICJ)
• International Criminal Court (ICC)
• BRICS
• Multilateralism vs. Unilateralism
• Rules-based international order

Israel-Iran Conflict and US Involvement

• In June, Israel and Iran engaged in a 12-day exchange of fire, with both sides claiming victory.
• The US, under President Trump, initially considered involvement for two weeks but launched Operation Midnight Hammer within three days, joining Israel in targeting Iranian nuclear sites (Foro, Natanz, and Ishvahan).
• The strikes were described as a "spectacular military success," obliterating Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities.
• The timing of the US intervention suggests a possible ruse to catch Iran off guard.
• Internally, the US government had conflicting views, with some advocating isolationism and others favoring military action against Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

Legality and Presidential War Powers

• The US strike on Iran raised questions about presidential war powers, as the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war.
• Politicians questioned President Trump's decision to use force without congressional approval.
• The legality of both Israeli and American actions is being debated internationally, potentially challenging the current rules-based order.

The Role and Limitations of the United Nations

• The UN and the ICJ were established after World War II to mediate conflicts and uphold international law.
• Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense (Article 51).
• Preemptive self-defense is allowed under the laws of armed conflict, but requires demonstrating a clear and present danger.
• The UN condemned the initial Israeli strikes and the subsequent American bombardment, but largely remained on the sidelines.
• The UN's ineffectiveness in stopping hostilities, from the Russia-Ukraine war to the Israel-Iran conflict, highlights its limitations.
• The global system is dominated by certain powers, particularly the permanent five members of the Security Council, each wielding a veto that can halt any resolution.

International Criminal Court and Enforcement Challenges

• The ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel's former defense minister for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
• While some ICC members supported the ruling, others were non-committal about detaining the Israeli leader, exposing the flaw of enforcement within the international system.
• The ICC's actions were described as "out of the ordinary," demonstrating its willingness to play a role, but its limitations are inherent in its structure.
• Historically, the system relied on the US as a "benevolent leader" to undertake the right actions.

Shifting Global Alignments and Multilateralism

• America's actions, including the attack on Iran, withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and imposition of tariffs, are seen as undermining the multilateral world order.
• Countries are looking to align along other lines, such as Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's call for Muslim nations to unite over Gaza.
• Malaysia maintains its position on the rights of Palestinians and supports a two-state solution.
• BRICS, an intergovernmental organization of mostly global south nations, is increasingly seen as an alternative to the Western-led world order.
• China presents itself as a stabilizing force and a champion of the global south, though this assertion has been questioned.
• The world is potentially moving towards a bipolar or tripolar order, with the US, China, and India as superpowers.

Consequences and the Future of International Order

• Iran has stated it will pursue all legal avenues regarding the attacks on its territory.
• The credibility of international institutions is undermined if Israel and the US cannot make a stronger case in international courts and global public opinion.
• The breakdown of the rules-based international order has serious implications, potentially leading countries to disregard international law in disputes, such as territorial claims in the South China Sea.
• The world is moving away from multilateralism towards a unilateral, realist architecture of security, where "might makes right."
• In this new world order, countries may seek the ultimate weapon to ensure their security.

Notable Quotes:

• President Trump: "We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end. And perhaps most importantly, the wars that we never get into."
• Muhammad Azmi Abdul Hammed: "United Nation really has to act. It cannot be an organization that's now failing everything about protecting civilians and implementing the universal human rights and also international law."

Technical Terms and Concepts:

• Operation Midnight Hammer: The name given to the US military operation involving air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.
• Preemptive Self-Defense: The use of force by a state in anticipation of an imminent attack.
• Rules-Based International Order: A system of global governance based on international law, treaties, and institutions.
• Multilateralism: Cooperation among multiple countries on a given issue.
• Unilateralism: A policy of acting alone, without consulting or cooperating with other countries.
• BRICS: An intergovernmental organization comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

Synthesis/Conclusion:

The video analyzes the implications of the Israel-Iran conflict and the US involvement for the future of the rules-based international order. It argues that the actions of major powers, particularly the US, are undermining multilateralism and leading to a more unilateral world where international law is increasingly disregarded. The limitations of international institutions like the UN and ICC are highlighted, and the potential for a shift towards a bipolar or tripolar world order is discussed. The ultimate takeaway is a concern that the erosion of the rules-based order could lead to increased instability and a greater risk of conflict.