International relations enter the era of Russian roulette
The fundamental restraining elements of international relations are being dismantled today. The war against Iran will only accelerate this process and deepen the chaos already shaping global politics. Whatever the outcome of the current crisis, the attack by the US and Israel on Iran will have consequences far beyond the fate of the Islamic Republic itself. What is really at stake is the perception of what is possible and acceptable in international relations. That perception is changing, and not for the better.
First of all, any appeal to international law, which formally underpins diplomacy, has lost even its symbolic meaning. When the US was preparing to invade Iraq in 2002-03, it still considered it necessary to seek a UN Security Council resolution. Colin Powell famously appeared before the UN holding a test tube meant to demonstrate the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, accompanied by carefully crafted rhetoric. The argument failed, but the attempt itself mattered. It reflected the belief that some form of justification was still required.
Today, even that reflex has disappeared. Neither last summer’s hostilities nor the current escalation involved any attempt to secure approval from international institutions. In Washington, the debate has shifted inward. Critics now argue that Donald Trump lacked the constitutional authority to effectively launch a war without congressional approval, something George W. Bush formally obtained before invading Iraq. But this is an internal American dispute. External legitimacy is no longer considered relevant.
The diplomatic process itself has been turned on its head. The most recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June last year, and the current aggression were both preceded by intensive negotiations. These talks were not mere theatrics. Concrete proposals on resolving the nuclear issue were discussed. Yet in both cases, negotiations flowed directly into military action without ever formally breaking off.
In Israel’s case, this approach is at least consistent. Israeli leaders have never concealed their aim of destroying the Iranian regime and have openly dismissed diplomacy as futile. The US, by contrast, used dialogue cynically. Not as a path to compromise, but as a means of lowering Iran’s guard before striking.
What lessons will countries currently negotiating with the US draw from this? It is obvious. You cannot trust the process. You can only rely on yourself and your own strength. At minimum, you need leverage that your counterpart cannot ignore. Beyond that, the logic becomes even darker.
For the first time since the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of a sovereign state has been eliminated by a targeted strike. What’s more, this has been publicly presented as a positive achievement, even a contribution to peace. Ali Khamenei was the legitimate leader of a UN member, recognized by virtually the entire international community and fully engaged in international relations. This included negotiations with the very actors who organized the attack, negotiations that continued until the moment force was used.
The assassination of a state leader by another state’s military, carried out deliberately and following the same model used against terrorist or drug cartel leaders, represents a new stage in world politics. The contrast with previous cases of regime change is instructive. Gaddafi was killed by Libyans amid internal collapse. Saddam Hussein was executed after a trial conducted by an Iraqi court, however questionable its fairness. Iran’s case is different. It replicates the method Israel employed against Hezbollah and Hamas leaders, a method fully endorsed by Washington.
What is being dismantled are the last remaining restraints inherited from earlier eras. State legitimacy is no longer grounded in formal recognition or legal status, but in circumstance and personal preference. International relations begin to resemble a game of Russian roulette. In the past, norms were often violated, and morality was interpreted differently across cultures. But there were frameworks. Those frameworks are now being discarded.
Because this erosion has been gradual, many political elites treat these events as merely another sharp but understandable episode of geopolitical rivalry. They are mistaken. For opponents of the US, the conclusions are unavoidable.
First, negotiating with Washington is pointless. The only alternatives are capitulation or preparation for a force-based outcome.
Second, it is increasingly plausible that there is nowhere left to retreat and nothing left to lose. In this scenario, any ‘final’ argument becomes legitimate, including the red button, be it literal or figurative.
These conclusions hold regardless of how events in Iran unfold. Even if a Venezuela-style outcome emerges, a backstage power transfer designed to satisfy external stakeholders, the damage will not be undone. The mechanism for forcibly changing governments has been demonstrated, and it is far harsher than the color revolutions of the 2000s. Resistance to it will harden, not soften. In certain scenarios, the consequences could be catastrophic.
There is also a broader regional dimension. The 2003 invasion of Iraq remains the key reference point. That campaign shattered the post-war Middle Eastern order. The swift defeat of Saddam Hussein’s army created euphoria in Washington and optimism about reshaping the region along American lines. The opposite happened. Control weakened, unexpected actors gained power, and instability spread. Ironically, the rise of Iran as a regional force was itself a product of Iraq’s destruction.
If Iran is now transformed through military force, the region will once again enter a new and unpredictable phase. Trump’s vision for the Middle East is simple. Israel is to become the dominant military power, while economic integration with Gulf monarchies is deepened in the interests of the United States. Iran stands in the way – as both a source of fear for its neighbors and a sovereign actor with its own interests and partnerships. Remove or cripple it, and the military-commercial architecture appears viable.
But Iraq should serve as a warning. Iran is too central to the Middle East’s political, cultural, and historical fabric for any such plan to unfold smoothly. According to leaks, Trump hesitated before authorizing the attack. He was persuaded by the promise of enormous gains: Control over the Gulf, leverage across territories stretching from the Caucasus to Central Asia, and new commercial opportunities aligned with his worldview. On paper, the logic is compelling. In reality, these projects rarely unfold as planned.
The final conclusion is hardly new. Coercion and brute force are increasingly central to global politics. Everything else is secondary. Even the pretense of moral or ideological justification is no longer necessary. How states respond to this reality is a matter of choice. But pretending it does not exist is no longer an option.
This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team