Dr.Shabnam Delfani
The United Nations Security Council once again rushed to condemn Iran last night. The decision was framed as a defense of international law and global stability. Yet a closer examination reveals something far less principled: a political response that avoids confronting the far more uncomfortable question ; the legality of the strikes that triggered the crisis in the first place.
On 28 February 2026, a coordinated illegal and unlawful military operation by the United States and Israel launched large-scale strikes across Iranian territory in what Israel called “Operation Lion’s Roar.” Explosions were reported in Tehran and other cities as missiles and aircraft targeted military infrastructure and government facilities.
Under the UN Charter, the legal framework governing the use of force between states is explicit. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Only two narrow exceptions exist: authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII, or the exercise of self-defense under Article 51 following an armed attack.
Neither condition appears clearly satisfied in this case.
No Security Council mandate authorized the strikes. Nor has evidence been publicly presented demonstrating that Iran had launched an armed attack that would trigger the right of self-defense under Article 51. In the absence of such authorization, legal scholars and human-rights groups have warned that the strikes may constitute a violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggressive war.
Yet the Security Council, the body tasked with enforcing those rules has largely avoided addressing that central legal question and illegal aggression against Iran.
Instead, the chamber has moved quickly to condemn Iran’s retaliation while remaining conspicuously cautious about the legality of the initial strikes carried out by Washington and Tel Aviv, which has been condemned by several global leaders as illegal strikes.
This asymmetry is not just political optics; it undermines the architecture of international law itself.
International humanitarian law imposes strict obligations on all parties in conflict. Civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools, and humanitarian facilities is protected under the Geneva Conventions and related Security Council resolutions. These protections are not optional and do not depend on geopolitical alliances.
But reports emerging from Iran raise troubling questions. Iranian officials say more than a thousand civilians have been killed in the ongoing strikes, including children, with thousands more injured as the bombing campaign expanded across the country. (Al Jazeera)
One of the most controversial incidents involved a missile strike on a primary school in Minab, which killed 168 of children and 14 teachers. Based on the UN experts and conventions definitions, the attack was a war crime as a protection of civilians have been violated.
Cultural heritage sites have also reportedly suffered damage from nearby explosions, raising concerns about violations of international conventions protecting historic monuments during armed conflict. (The Guardian)
Yet despite these obvious facts, the United Nations Security Council has responded with a familiar pattern of selective urgency quick to censure Iran, but conspicuously reluctant to scrutinize the legality of the military actions carried out by the United States and Israel.
If the institution were applying its own legal framework consistently, the same chamber condemning Iran today would also be demanding an immediate halt to the strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. It would be launching independent investigations into civilian casualties. It would be invoking the very resolutions designed to protect hospitals, schools, and humanitarian infrastructure.
Instead, the Council once again looks paralyzed by politics.
The deeper problem is structural. The Security Council was designed in 1945 to prevent great-power confrontation by granting veto power to five permanent members. In practice, that veto has evolved into a mechanism that shields powerful states and their allies from accountability.
One permanent member can block any resolution regardless of humanitarian consequences.
That is why growing voices across the international community are now calling for reform. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez recently argued that the veto power must be abolished if the United Nations hopes to restore its legitimacy and function as a truly impartial body of international law.
It is difficult to dispute the logic.
A system that allows five countries to override global consensus cannot claim to represent a rules-based order. It represents power politics with legal language attached.
Last night’s resolution against Iran illustrates the deep problem perfectly. The Security Council acted quickly to condemn one side of the conflict while avoiding scrutiny of the initial strikes that ignited the war. If international law is to retain any meaning, it cannot be applied selectively.
All unlawful uses of force must be examined. All attacks on civilians must be condemned. And all states whether adversaries or allies must be held to the same legal standard.
Otherwise, the Security Council risks becoming exactly what many critics already believe it is: not the guardian of global peace, but a stage where geopolitical power masquerades as justice.!
