The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict has illustrated a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. Great power politics are driving this international shift, which demands an ethical amnesty framework, writes DrMuhammad Imran Ashraf.

THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM is undergoing a profound transformation marked by the erosion of the rules-based order. This shift is driven largely by the conduct of major powers, particularly the United States and Israel, in their ongoing confrontation with Iran.

Increasingly, these actors prioritise national interests, strategic dominance, and security imperatives over shared global norms and legal frameworks. This pattern undermines the legitimacy ofinternational institutionsand signals to smaller states that adherence to global rules is optional rather than obligatory.

This transformation reflects not only a structural shift but also a deeper normative crisis. Core principles such as justice, legalityand multilateralism are increasingly subordinated to strategic expediency. The ongoing conflict exemplifies this trend and has evolved into an existential struggle for all three actors.

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

Yet, the conflict also exposes the limits of U.S. power. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the United States has been unable to end the confrontation decisively. Irans reliance on asymmetric warfare, regional alliances, and retaliatory capabilities has imposed significant political andeconomiccosts, suggesting that power alone is no longer sufficient to determine outcomes.

At its core, the conflict is rooted in deep structural causes: longstanding hostility, ideological rivalry, nuclear tensionsand competition for regional dominance. These underlying dynamics createa volatile environmenttriggered by military escalation, leading to a cycle of retaliation.

What began as a limited confrontation has expanded into a broader regional crisis affecting global energy markets and trade routes, particularly through strategic chokepoints like theStrait of Hormuz.

On Easter Sunday, Trump warned that a 'whole civilisation will die tonight' if Iran refused his latest demands.

The persistence of the conflict highlights the gap between theoretical foreign policy frameworks and real-world decision-making. While democratic theory emphasises institutional oversight, in practice, foreign policy is often dominated by executive leadership. Strategic perceptions, psychological factorsand 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, proportionalityand last resort,providinga useful framework. While preemptive security concerns may be invoked as justification, the scale of destruction and civilian suffering raises doubts about proportionality. Moreover, continued hostilities despite diplomatic alternatives suggest that the principle of last resort has not been fully satisfied.

A utilitarian perspective further challenges the conflicts legitimacy. The war has resulted in significant loss of life, regional instabilityand global economic disruption. Energy price volatility and threats to trade routes have amplified global consequencesindicating that the overallharmoutweighs potential benefits.

Similarly, a deontological approach, which emphasises moral duties, highlights violations of sovereignty and civilian protections. Preemptive strikes and strategic targeting raise serious concerns about compliance with international law, including the principles enshrined in theGeneva Conventions.

The conflict also underscores the enduring tension between realism and idealism in international relations.Realismposits thatpower and national interest dominate current behaviour, while idealist principles such as cooperation and collective security are increasingly marginalised. This imbalance weakens global governance and creates a permissive environment for further deviations from established norms.

Several interrelated problems emerge. First, the concentration of foreign policy decision-making in executive leadership limits accountability and encourages unilateral action. Second, the failure of preventive diplomacy has allowed tensions to escalate into open conflict. Third, ethical considerations particularly civilian protection are often sidelined in favour of strategic objectives. This creates an escalation spiral in which each action provokes retaliation, further destabilising the region.

Despite its obvious collapse, Australia continues to cling to the hope of a U.S.-led rules-based order instead of seeking its own way forward in the region and the world.

Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive and ethically grounded response. Diplomacy must be re-centred as the primary tool of conflict resolution, supported by renewed commitment to multilateral engagement. Ethical restraint in warfare, especially adherence to proportionality and civilian protection, must be reinforced.

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

Ultimately, the conflict is not merely geopolitical but a test of moral responsibility in international politics. While realism may explain state behaviour, 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 impasse appears shaped less by structural constraints than by political calculations of key leaders. For instance, leadership considerations in the United States may require a credible face-saving pathway to support de-escalation. One possible narrative emphasisesthat traditional allies remain fundamentally aligned with the United States,even when disagreeing with specific policies. Such framing could preserve credibility while enabling a shift toward diplomacy.

At the same time, the potential involvement ofNATOor other nuclear-armed states significantly increases the risk of escalation. In such a scenario, attribution of responsibility for any nuclear use would become highly contested, creating dangerous ambiguity. This uncertainty could trigger a self-reinforcing escalation dynamic, heightening the risk of catastrophicoutcomes.

Ought rather than is: An ethical amnesty framework

Historically, wars tend to end through two pathways. First, when the cumulative human and economic costs become unsustainable. Second, when leaders are provided with face-saving exit options that preserve their legitimacy. In the present conflict, despite high costs, both sides remain entrenched, suggesting that a dignified exit mechanism is essential.

If Trump bombs Iran's civilian infrastructure, Britain and Australia must respond not out of partisanship, but because the laws that protect Tehran today protect London and Sydney.

An innovative approach would involve the United Nations Secretary-General,Antnio Guterres,invokingArticle 99of the UN Charter, which allows independent action to address threats to international peace. This could form the basis for a formal appeal for an immediate ceasefire, similar to the global ceasefirecallmade during COVID-19 in 2020.

Proposed framework

This structured approach balances immediate de-escalation with a pathway toward sustainable peace. By providing a face-saving mechanism for all parties, it increases the likelihood of compliance while restoring confidence in international law.

The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict represents a critical juncture in global politics. It reflects not only shifting power dynamics but also a deeper erosion of ethical commitment in international relations. Without renewed emphasis on diplomacy, legal normsand moral responsibility, the global order risks descending into a system where power consistently overrides principle.

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

Dr Muhammad Imran Ashrafis an associate professor and executive director ofHYIERI Australia.

Related Articles

• Donald Trump and the Iran War path to madness
• American war strategy and the need for independence
• Iran War has exposed Australias vulnerabilities and misplaced priorities
• Grow up or blow up: Humanity's final exam
• This Century's 'Sarajevo Moment'