TEHRAN – The prohibition on the threat or use of force, based on Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations, is considered one of the fundamental and peremptory norms of international law. This rule is not merely a political or ethical recommendation; it is a binding norm with a preventive nature, whose primary objective is to prevent the normalization of coercion in relations between states. International law rightly distinguishes between the “use of force” and the “threat of force,” but explicitly prohibits both. A threat that objectively has the capacity to intimidate or deprive another state of its freedom to make independent decisions, even without an armed attack occurring, can be considered a violation of the UN Charter.
This rule, as one of the most significant achievements of international law after World War II, was established in the UN Charter with the aim of preventing the rule of force and military superiority from superseding legal rules in relations between states. However, the turbulent developments of recent years indicate that this rule now faces serious and multi-layered challenges. Frequent military threats, the continuous display of power, and the increasing resort to overt and covert forms of force raise the fundamental question of whether the prohibition on the use of force still retains its normative and preventive function or is gradually being undermined.
In this context, the repeated threats by the United States of America and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran – from public statements and implicit messages to the deployment of offensive equipment, extensive military arrangements, and overt and covert operations – can hardly be explained as isolated reactions or exceptional circumstances. The continuity and relatively coherent direction of these actions suggest the existence of a gradual process eroding the rule prohibiting the threat or use of force; an erosion whose effects extend beyond a specific case and could seriously impact the foundations of the international legal order.
From this perspective, the normalization of military power displays and the repetition of overt or implicit threats, without meeting the stringent conditions for self-defense or obtaining explicit authorization from the Security Council, leads to the gradual weakening of the normative function of the prohibition on the use of force and progressively blurs the line between legitimate deterrence and illegal threat.
In this regard, the hostile actions of the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran – which have escalated in recent months and took the form of a twelve-day war involving a series of combined operations and attacks, directly leading to the killing of a significant number of defenseless civilians and ordinary citizens, including nuclear scientists – hold particular importance from the perspective of international law. Such actions are not only in clear conflict with the peremptory norm prohibiting the use of force but also constitute a serious and persistent violation of fundamental principles of international law, particularly the principle of distinction and the protection of the civilian population. The continuation of such behavior clearly shows how fragile and tenuous the boundary between “threat,” “limited conflict,” and “extensive armed hostility” has become, and how disregard for legal rules can steer a manageable crisis towards a widespread and devastating war.
Nevertheless, the recent US military deployment to the West Asia region – involving the dispatch of warplanes and naval vessels, the stationing of military forces, and the enhancement of offensive arrangements – carries significant legal and security implications. Such actions, if undertaken outside the framework of self-defense or without Security Council authorization, straddle the thin line between deterrence and illegal threat. The persistence of this situation seriously increases the risk of miscalculation, uncontrollable escalation of tension, and a gradual slide towards a widespread regional conflict.
Of course, a look at the United States’ record clearly shows that the resort to force has never been limited to classical and episodic conflicts. The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were accompanied by widespread devastating human and infrastructural consequences, ultimately leading to chronic and irreparable instability in these countries due to the intervening state’s actions. In recent years, this pattern has expanded into more unconventional and covert forms; from secret and proxy operations to attempts at the abduction or political removal of the President of Venezuela. Such actions are not substantially different from the direct resort to force and are a clear example of violating the principle of non-intervention and the threat to the political independence of states.
Regarding Israel as well, considering and examining the performance of this regime reveals a pattern of overt and continuous resort to force. Repeated military operations in Gaza, with heavy civilian casualties, destruction of vital infrastructure, and the imposition of a blockade, along with frequent attacks in recent decades in southern Lebanon and recent sustained bombings on Syrian soil, demonstrate that the use of force has become a common tool in this regime’s security policy. It is evident that the current threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be analyzed separately from this record; these threats are a continuation of the same path that has previously imposed extensive costs on civilians.
The strange and noteworthy point is that the United States and the Israeli regime, despite such records, present themselves as defenders of a “rules-based international order,” while simultaneously labeling any defensive stance or public warning from the Islamic Republic of Iran as an “illegal threat” or “destabilizing behavior.” This double standard reduces international law from a shared normative system to a selective tool serving the balance of power and seriously erodes trust in the rules.
Furthermore, the structural weakness of the United Nations, the selective responses of the international community, the lack of effective enforcement guarantees, and the limited and politicized function of the Security Council, all play a role in exacerbating this situation.
Nonetheless, the continuation of threats, military deployments, and institutional inaction carries the real risk of steering the region towards a widespread, costly, and devastating war; a war whose consequences will certainly not be limited to one or two countries and will threaten the security of millions of people across the region.
If this trend is not contained by effective political will, efficient legal planning, and active intervention by the United Nations, particularly with the courage of member states, the prohibition on the use of force – one of the main pillars of the international legal order – will gradually be reduced to a ceremonial norm, and chaos will be but one of its dangerous consequences.
Dr. Hassan Groussi is a faculty member at the Tehran Center Faculty of Law
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
