The notion that brute force rules in international affairs faces a growing challenge from two unexpected quarters. Russia's war on Ukraine and the US-led strikes on Iran suggest that even the world's strongest military players cannot simply impose their will, despite trampling international law in the process.
Russia, once feared as a formidable power, was supposed to crush Ukraine within weeks. Western allies were divided and hesitant. Ukraine was vastly outgunned. Yet the narrative has shifted. Ukraine endures, holding its ground despite Russia's continued military and demographic advantages and despite the withdrawal of US support under the Trump administration. European backing, while consistent, remains stretched thin. Still, Ukraine stands.
The Iran situation offers a starker lesson. The US and Israel, acting as the world's preeminent military forces, struck Iran twice in flagrant violation of international law. European leaders eventually admitted the illegality, though some squirmed initially. The calculus seemed simple: a militarily superb US, partnered with an ascending Israel, could batter a regime already weakened by internal unrest and repression into submission. Trump was reportedly convinced one final push would topple the Islamic Republic outright.
Instead, four months later, the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding that tells a different story. The arrangement reopens the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control, unfreezes Iranian assets, temporarily lifts oil sanctions, and restarts nuclear negotiations. Trump secured the best he could manage, but critics in both Washington and Tel Aviv say it favors Iran. The implicit message: the strongest did not prevail.
Both wars showcase brazen international law violations and simultaneous failure by the top military powers. That paradox matters.
Europe now faces a choice. It backed Ukraine and international law while wavering hypocritically in the Middle East. Two recent moves signal how it might correct course.
About 40 countries, led by France and the UK, have formed a taskforce for the Strait of Hormuz to clear mines and secure shipping lanes. The initiative demonstrates European willingness to take an active role, revives multilateral instincts, and roots any action in international law and coastal state consent. The operation will almost certainly never happen. Trump has shown no interest in European proposals, and Iran flatly rejects foreign warships in its waters. Without Iranian approval, Europeans concede, there is no deployment.
A second, quieter European effort carries more weight. Norway, which condemned the initial war and holds credibility in Middle Eastern law, has leveraged its expertise in maritime law. Though the US and Iran refuse to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, both show interest in respecting its terms in the strait. Norway has provided legal guidance to Iran, Oman, and mediators from Pakistan and Qatar to ensure any new arrangements comply with Unclos' core principle: freedom of navigation. This unglamorous, supply-driven counsel restores European credibility and offers real utility.
Europe's credibility remains shattered on Palestine and Lebanon, where rhetorical concern has not translated to policy. Israel's actions in Gaza remain unaccountable despite widespread allegations of war crimes and possible genocide. European governments have shielded Israel from legal obligation.
Change may finally be stirring. EU sanctions on hardline Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich will not materialize, requiring impossible unanimity. But a more significant move looms: an EU import ban on goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The legal pathway requires only a qualified majority vote. A majority of member states already back it. Some former opponents, including Italy, have signaled openness. Germany stands alone among major powers in opposition, bizarrely arguing the ban echoes Nazi persecution of Jews. The comparison is obscene and intellectually indefensible.
Pressure builds nonetheless. Kaja Kallas, the EU's high representative, pushed by most member governments, formally asked the European Commission to propose the ban. Ursula von der Leyen may resist. Yet the indefensibility of EU trade with illegal settlements is plain. Europe gains nothing by fighting a losing battle while abandoning international law. The winning path runs through the rule of law.
Author James Rodriguez: "Watching military superpowers stumble against smaller nations and rogue actors proves that raw force no longer dictates outcomes, and the lesson Europe must finally act on."
Comments