The Escalating Iran-Israel Conflict and the Imperative for Peace

Rasheed Ahmad Chughtai

www,rachughtai.com

Executive Summary

The recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, conducted via B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster munitions, mark a significant escalation in the ongoing Iran-Israel war. While the U.S. claims these strikes have neutralized Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the broader geopolitical ramifications—including violations of international norms, civilian casualties, and the destabilization of regional security—demand urgent diplomatic intervention. This report assesses the strategic implications of military actions, critiques the “might is right” doctrine, and advocates for an immediate ceasefire, de-escalation, and a return to negotiated solutions under the framework of the Abraham Accords and UN Charter principles.

1. Strategic Assessment of U.S. Strikes on Iran

Military Impact

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) strikes targeted Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, with the U.S. asserting that Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities have been “completely obliterated” .
Israel’s prior Operation Rising Lion (June 12–21, 2025) degraded Iranian air defenses, missile stockpiles, and command structures, enabling the U.S. to execute precision strikes .
Iran’s retaliatory capacity remains constrained but not eliminated; Tehran retains proxy networks (Hezbollah, Houthis) and asymmetric warfare capabilities .

Diplomatic Fallout

The unilateral U.S. action violates the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggressive war (Article 2(4)), undermining multilateralism.
Regional backlash: Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, despite security ties with Israel, express alarm over nuclear facility strikes due to potential radiological risks .
Chinese and Russian reactions: Both powers condemn the strikes as destabilizing, with China advocating for dialogue under the “Muslim West Asian Dialogue Association” (Mwada) as a counter to U.S.-led frameworks .

2. Critique of the “Might is Right” Doctrine

Humanitarian Costs

Civilian casualties: Israeli strikes in Iran have killed 430+ (per Iranian state media), while Iranian drone attacks in Israel have resulted in 25+ deaths .
Gaza conflict spillover: The 10,000+ civilian deaths in Gaza (since October 2023) and continued blockade exemplify how militarization perpetuates human suffering without resolving root causes .

Legitimacy Deficit

Regime change rhetoric: The U.S. has disavowed intentions to overthrow Iran’s government , yet strikes implicitly seek to coerce political capitulation—a tactic that historically fuels resistance (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan).
Erosion of the Abraham Accords: Designed to foster Arab-Israeli normalization, the Accords are strained by perceived U.S.-Israeli militarism, with Bahrain recalling its ambassador in November 2023 .

3. Pathways to De-escalation and Ceasefire

Immediate Measures

Unconditional ceasefire: Israel must halt strikes, given the U.S. assessment that Iran’s nuclear program is degraded .
Humanitarian corridors: UN-mediated aid access for conflict zones (e.g., Gaza, Khuzestan) to mitigate civilian suffering .
Reaffirmation of the Abraham Accords:

UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco should leverage their diplomatic channels to broker talks .
Saudi Arabia—though not an Accord signatory—could condition normalization on Israeli commitments to Palestinian statehood .

Long-Term Diplomatic Framework

Multilateral engagement:
UNSC Resolution: Demand compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA safeguards.
China’s role: As a top trading partner of Iran and GCC states, Beijing must pressure Tehran to renounce nuclear weaponization while urging U.S.-Israel restraint .
Track II diplomacy: Encourage academic, interfaith, and business dialogues under the Abraham Accords’ principles of “peaceful coexistence” .

4. Conclusion: The Imperative of Peace

Military solutions—whether Israeli decapitation strikes or U.S. bunker-buster campaigns—cannot secure lasting stability. The “might is right” paradigm only deepens cycles of violence, as seen in Gaza and now Iran. The Abraham Accords, though weakened, remain a viable framework for confidence-building measures, provided:

All parties cease hostilities and return to JCPOA-like negotiations.
Civil society and religious leaders (Jewish, Muslim, Christian) unite under the Accords’ vision of “tolerance and dignity for all” .
China and regional powers invest in economic incentives (e.g., post-war reconstruction) to offset security dilemmas.

Final Recommendation: The UN must convene an emergency session to mandate ceasefire monitoring and revive the Middle East Quartet (UN, EU, U.S., Russia) for mediated talks. Without dialogue, the alternative is perpetual war—a outcome no civilization can afford.

“Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice.”
—Adapted from Martin Luther King Jr.