By: Ricardo Abud
The recent US bombing of Iran, carried out without congressional authorization and amid growing global instability, marks a turning point in US foreign policy and the fragile balance of power in the Middle East.
This act, which could escalate into a nuclear conflict, not only challenges the US's domestic legal framework but also demonstrates the irrelevance of the UN as a guarantor of world peace. The decision, prompted by growing tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv, has unleashed a geopolitical storm unprecedented since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
President Trump's decision to authorize these attacks without prior congressional approval has sparked a domestic constitutional crisis . The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, a prerogative that, though eroded for decades, now faces its most severe test.
Lawmakers from both parties have questioned the legality of the action. Representatives like Republican Thomas Massie have called the attacks "unconstitutional," while Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called them "clear grounds for impeachment ." This bipartisan divide reveals the deep fissures in the American political system regarding the use of military force. By acting unilaterally, Trump has set a dangerous precedent that dramatically expands presidential power in matters of war, compromising democratic controls over the nation's most consequential decisions.
The omission of Congressional consent is not simply a protocolary omission; it is a constitutional transgression that places American democracy in an institutional crisis. For US domestic politics, this represents a fracture. Moderate Republican voices and Democratic leaders have agreed that this decision seriously compromises the credibility of institutions and undermines the country's long-term foreign policy.
Iran is neither a marginal actor nor a failed state; it is a regional power with networks of influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and with proven capability in asymmetric warfare. Washington has provoked not only military aggression, but an act of direct war without verifiable provocation and without international consensus.
Iran finds itself in an extraordinarily complex geopolitical position, facing simultaneous military pressure from Israel and now the United States, which has directly attacked its infrastructure. This unprecedented situation places Tehran at a strategic crossroads.
Iran has warned that US attacks "will have lasting consequences" and that it "reserves all options" for retaliation. This rhetoric, far from mere propaganda, reflects the limited and dangerous options facing Iran:
Conventional Escalation : Intensifying attacks against Israeli or U.S. targets in the region, utilizing both its own capabilities and those of its regional proxies .
Regional Network Activation : Iran's "Axis of Resistance" (Hezbollah, Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria) could coordinate asymmetric responses against Western and Israeli interests.
Nuclear Option : Extreme pressure could push Iran toward an acceleration of its nuclear program or even toward the development of military nuclear capabilities as a last-resort deterrent.
The result has been immediate: clear threats from Tehran, military movements in the Persian Gulf, missiles in the air, and a world holding its breath. For Iran, bombed by the US and simultaneously attacked by Israel, the response will be multiple and sustained, turning into a regional war of attrition that could spread to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, even affecting international energy markets.
Israel, according to intelligence reports, has been a key player in recent joint operations. But that same strategic alliance makes it a prime target. Tehran has already activated its network of allies in the region, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. Israeli anti-missile systems are sophisticated, but a simultaneous and massive attack could overwhelm their defense capabilities.
For the Israeli civilian population, the danger is real. And for its government, the dilemma is profound: should it continue to escalate or contain it, as international public opinion becomes increasingly critical?
The unilateral US action represents a mortal blow to the multilateral system of international security . The UN, already weakened by years of deadlock in the Security Council, is revealed to be completely powerless in the face of this escalation. The organization founded to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" stands paralyzed as world powers act with total impunity.
This collapse of the multilateral order has implications that go beyond the immediate conflict. Without effective international mediation mechanisms, the world is moving toward a system of " mightiest justice ," where nuclear powers can act unilaterally without institutional consequences. The message to the world is clear: powerful states are no longer accountable to the institutional architecture created to maintain peace.
What Can the United States Expect Now?
- Domestic Political Costs : The bipartisan divide over the legality of the attacks will weaken domestic political cohesion and could lead to impeachment proceedings or legislative investigations that would paralyze the domestic agenda.
- International Isolation : Unilateral US action will deepen its isolation among European allies, who had already expressed reservations about the aggressive approach toward Iran.
- Risk of escalation : The United States has inserted itself directly into a conflict that could evolve into a full-blown regional war, compromising American military resources and lives.
Washington has won a military target, but has lost diplomatic positions. Potential Iranian responses will not be long in coming: cyberattacks on critical infrastructure on US soil; attacks on military and diplomatic bases in the Middle East; a diplomatic boycott of long-standing allies; and a possible reactivation of Iran's nuclear program.
For Israel
- Legitimation of aggression : US attacks provide political cover for Israeli actions, but also raise expectations of definitive outcomes.
- Escalating risks : US intervention could provoke more severe Iranian responses against Israeli territory, including the use of longer-range and more destructive weapons.
- Strategic dependence : Israel becomes more dependent on US support, limiting its future strategic autonomy.
For Iran
- Survival : Attacks on nuclear facilities represent an existential threat that could unify the country around the government, regardless of internal divisions.
- Nuclear acceleration : Paradoxically, the attacks could provide international justification for an acceleration of Iran's nuclear program as a self-defense measure.
- Regional activation : Iran could use its entire network of regional proxies to respond asymmetrically, spreading the conflict to multiple theaters.
Iranian Response Scenarios
Measured response : Targeted strikes against Israeli military targets and US bases in the region, while maintaining a certain proportionality to avoid nuclear escalation.
Regional escalation : Coordination with Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iraqi militias for multiple simultaneous attacks against Western and Israeli interests, transforming the conflict into a regional war.
Nuclear option : In the most extreme scenario, acceleration of the nuclear program to the development of military capabilities, justified as a response to the existential threat.
The events of June 2025 (June 13 and 21) mark the end of the international order established after World War II. The combination of:
- Collapse of multilateral institutions
- Unilateral actions by nuclear powers
- Erosion of international standards
- Extreme geopolitical polarization
These events suggest a transition toward an anarchic multipolar world , where military force determines political outcomes and international norms lose practical relevance. Moreover, China and Russia are consolidating their position as an ethical and strategic counterweight, which could accelerate a reconfiguration of the world order with less influence for Washington and more influence for emerging blocs.
The current crisis transcends the Israeli-Iranian conflict to become a fundamental test of the international system. The inability of global institutions to prevent or mediate this escalation reveals the fragility of the contemporary world order . By acting unilaterally, the United States has abandoned its historic role as guarantor of the international order to become just another actor in an anarchic system. This transformation will have lasting consequences for global governance and conflict prevention.
Iran, facing an existential threat, could opt for responses that permanently transform the regional and global balance of power. The tragedy of this situation is that all parties have lost the ability to control the consequences of their actions.
The world is witnessing a defining moment where the decisions of the coming days could determine whether humanity preserves some vestige of the international order or hurtles toward a new period of global anarchy . The U.S. bombing of Iran is not just a military escalation; it is a disruption of the norms, alliances, and consensus that have, with difficulty, sustained global equilibrium since 1945. The world stands on the brink of a new era of open confrontation—not necessarily total, but deeply destabilizing.
History will judge whether this action was a tactical error, a strategic folly, or the beginning of a deeper geopolitical transformation. What is already certain is that no one will emerge unscathed : neither governments, nor institutions, and certainly not the people who today live under the threat of war.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE EXCLUSIVE THAN BEING POOR
0 Comentarios