Ethics in the age of great power politics

The ongoing US-Israel-Iran conflict is indicative of a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. Dr Muhammad Imran Ashraf writes that great power politics is driving this international shift, which requires an ethical amnesty framework.

THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM is undergoing a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. This change is largely due to the behavior of major powers, especially the United States and Israel, in their ongoing conflict with Iran.

These actors increasingly prioritize national interests, strategic dominance, and security imperatives over common global norms and legal frameworks. This model weakens legitimacy international institutions and signals to smaller states that compliance with global rules is optional rather than mandatory.

This transformation reflects not only a structural change but also a deeper normative crisis. Fundamental principles such as justice, legality and multilateralism are increasingly subordinated to strategic purpose. The ongoing conflict is an example of this trend and has become an existential struggle for all three actors.

For Israel, this is about long-term security and survival; For Iran, regime continuity and regional influence; and credibility, deterrence, and global leadership for the United States.

But the conflict also reveals the limits of US power. Despite its overwhelming military superiority, the United States failed to bring a decisive end to the conflict. Iran’s reliance on asymmetric warfare, regional alliances, and retaliatory capabilities poses significant political and economic This shows that power alone is no longer enough to determine outcomes.

Deep structural causes lie at the core of the conflict: long-standing hostility, ideological rivalry, nuclear tensions and competition for regional dominance. These underlying dynamics create a volatile environment triggered by military tension, leading to a cycle of retaliation.

What started as a limited conflict has evolved into a broader regional crisis affecting global energy markets and trade routes, particularly strategic chokepoints. Strait of Hormuz.

The continuation of the conflict underscores the gap between theoretical foreign policy frameworks and real-world decision-making processes. While democratic theory emphasizes institutional oversight, in practice foreign policy is mostly dominated by executive leadership. Strategic perceptions, psychological factors, and threat assessments play decisive roles, reinforcing the idea that leadership responses to structural pressures shape outcomes more than formal institutions.

From an ethical perspective, the conflict raises serious concerns. “Just war theory” evaluates war based on just cause, proportionality and last resort and provides a useful framework. While preventive security concerns can be cited as justification, the extent of destruction and suffering of civilians raises doubts about proportionality. Moreover, the hostilities that continue despite diplomatic alternatives show that the principle of last resort has not been fully fulfilled.

A utilitarian perspective further challenges the legitimacy of the conflict. The war caused significant loss of life, regional instability, and global economic disruption. Volatility in energy prices and threats to trade routes have increased global consequences. damage outweigh the potential benefits.

Similarly, the deontological approach, which highlights moral duties, highlights violations of sovereignty and civil protection. Preemptive strikes and strategic targeting raise serious concerns about compliance with international law, including the principles contained in the Convention. Geneva Conventions.

The conflict also underscores the ongoing tension between realism and idealism in international relations. Realism It argues that power and national interests dominate current behavior, while idealistic principles such as cooperation and collective security are increasingly marginalized. This imbalance weakens global governance and creates an environment that allows greater deviation from established norms.

Many interconnected problems arise. First, the concentration of foreign policy decision-making in executive leadership limits accountability and encourages unilateral action. Second, the failure of preventive diplomacy led to tensions escalating into open conflict. Third, ethical considerations (especially the protection of civilians) are often set aside in favor of strategic objectives. This creates a spiral of tensions where every action provokes retaliation and further destabilizes the region.

Overcoming these challenges requires a comprehensive and ethically grounded response. Diplomacy must be re-centered as the primary tool of conflict resolution, underpinned by a renewed commitment to multilateral engagement. Ethical restraint in war, especially proportionality and commitment to civilian protection, should be strengthened.

Equally important is strengthening institutional oversight to balance executive decision-making. Long-term stability depends on addressing root causes such as security dilemmas, regional rivalries and economic inequalities.

After all, conflict is not only geopolitical but also a test of moral responsibility in international politics. Realism can explain state behavior, but it does not justify the consequences. Without renewed commitment to shared values and ethical leadership, the international system risks further fragmentation and instability.

Findings and strategic implications

The current stalemate appears to be shaped by the political calculations of key leaders rather than structural constraints. For example, leadership considerations in the United States may require a credible, face-saving way to support de-escalation. One possible narrative emphasizes that traditional allies remain fundamentally aligned with the United States, even if they disagree with certain policies. Such framing can maintain credibility while enabling a shift towards diplomacy.

At the same time, potential participation NATO or other nuclear-armed states, significantly increasing the risk of escalation. In such a scenario, attribution of responsibility for any nuclear use would become highly controversial and create dangerous uncertainty. This uncertainty can trigger a self-reinforcing escalation dynamic and increase the risk of disaster. results.

“Should have” rather than “should”: An ethical amnesty framework

Historically, wars tend to end in two ways. First, when the cumulative human and economic costs become unsustainable. Second, when leaders are presented with exit options that preserve their legitimacy and save their reputation. In the current conflict, both sides stand firm despite the high costs, indicating that an honorable exit mechanism is essential.

An innovative approach would involve the United Nations Secretary-General. Antonio Guterrescalling Article 99 between UN CharterAllowing independent action against threats to international peace. This could form the basis for a formal call for an immediate ceasefire, similar to a global ceasefire Call It was made during COVID-19 in 2020.

Recommended framework

1. Immediate ceasefire: A clear and unconditional call to cease hostilities to stop further losses.

2. senior committee: A representative body composed of major and regional powers, as well as independent legal experts, tasked with reaching a binding decision without veto restrictions.

3. Interim Strait of Hormuz regulation: An agreement providing continued access by sea, potentially with regulated transit mechanisms, to stabilize global energy flows.

4. Durable layout: A UN-mandated framework addressing compensation, security guarantees and long-term conflict prevention, likely to be approved by the UN General Assembly.

This structured approach balances urgent de-escalation with a path to sustainable peace. By providing a mechanism that protects the reputation of all parties, it increases the likelihood of compliance while restoring confidence in international law.

The ongoing US-Israel-Iran conflict represents a critical juncture in global politics. This reflects not only changing power dynamics but also a deeper erosion of ethical commitment in international relations. Without a renewed emphasis on diplomacy, legal norms, and moral responsibility, the global order is in danger of degenerating into a system in which power continually overrides principle.

A carefully framed initiative grounded in ethical pragmatism and institutional authority offers a viable path forward. Such an approach would not only end the current conflict but also contribute to the reconstruction of a more just and stable international order.