From Rossiiskaya gazeta, March 2, 2026, p. 1. Complete text:
The war against Iran is likely to exacerbate international chaos. Regardless of the outcome of the current crisis, the US and Israeli attack on Iran will have serious consequences for global politics. It is not just – or even primarily – about the prospects of the Islamic Republic itself. The issue lies in how the world perceives what is possible and acceptable in international relations. This perception is changing, and these changes do not bode well for the future.
To begin with, invoking international law – which, in theory, forms the basis of all diplomacy – has lost all sense. In 2002-2003, as it was preparing to invade Iraq, the US still considered it necessary to devote time and effort to securing a corresponding UN Security Council resolution. [Then-secretary of state] Colin Powell’s famous vial, which was supposed to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was presented at a UN session amid carefully crafted rhetoric. They couldn’t carry the argument, but they tried; they thought it was desirable to do so.
This time, it didn’t even cross their minds. Neither last summer [see Vol. 77, No. 26, pp. 3-7] nor now have the initiators of military action sought approval for their actions from international bodies. There is currently a debate in the US over the legality of the action – [US President Donald] Trump had no right to effectively declare war on another country without congressional authorization ([former US president] George W. Bush, incidentally, had obtained such authorization for Iraq in advance). But this is due to the political situation within the US; external factors are irrelevant.
The diplomatic process itself is turning into its own opposite. Both the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran (which began on June 13, 2025 –Ed.) and the current aggression were preceded by intensive diplomatic efforts. And these weren’t just for show; specific options for resolving the conflict over [Iran’s] nuclear program were discussed. But on both occasions, the negotiations – without ever really coming to a halt – transitioned to punitive military action. In Israel’s case, everything is, in a sense, “above board”: They have never hidden their desire to destroy the Iranian regime and have openly stated their lack of faith in the diplomatic route. But it turns out that the US cynically used the dialogue to lull them into a false sense of security and catch them off guard.
What conclusion will be drawn by those who are currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Washington – or those set to do so? You can’t trust anything at all. You should rely only on yourself and your own strength. At the very least, you need to have an argument that your opponent can’t ignore. It gets even more complicated from there.
Iran’s Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] has not only been eliminated by a precision strike, but this elimination has even been hailed as a major achievement and a boon for future conflict resolution. However, Ali Khamenei was the legitimate (under the laws of his country) head of a UN member state that is recognized by virtually everyone and is a full participant in all forms of international relations. This includes political negotiations with the organizers of the attack, which had been ongoing up until that point.
The assassination of a head of state by the forces of another state, acting on the orders of its leadership, following the same model used to eliminate the leaders of terrorist organizations or drug cartels, represents a fundamentally different dimension of world politics. Even compared to previous regime changes, including such brutal outcomes as the lynching of Libyan [president] Muammar Gaddafi or the execution of Iraqi [president] Saddam Hussein]. Both of those episodes were made possible by external military intervention. But Gaddafi was killed by his Libyan opponents in an act of civil unrest, while Hussein was executed following a trial and sentence handed down by an Iraqi court, however one might assess the court’s impartiality. The situation with Iran is different; it is a replication of the method Israel used against the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas [see, for example, Vol. 76, No. 30-31, pp. 18-19 – Trans.]. And the US fully supports this approach.
The fundamental constraints on international relations that have persisted from earlier eras are being dismantled. The recognition of a state’s legitimacy appears to depend on specific circumstances, or even on the personal sympathies or antipathies of individual leaders. This turns international relations into a kind of Russian roulette. And it undermines the very foundation they stand on. It’s not as if everyone used to act strictly in accordance with the law and moral standards (the latter, in any case, are interpreted differently depending on cultural traditions). But there were certain frameworks in place; now they are being removed.
Since this was a gradual process that unfolded quite smoothly, many political elites do not seem to view these events in such dramatic terms. They are regarded as a rather sharp, yet generally understandable manifestation of contradictions. However, not everyone agrees. It is obvious what conclusions the US’s opponents are entitled to draw. First of all, negotiating with the Americans is virtually pointless; the real issue is either surrender or a charade designed to pave the way for a military solution. Second, it’s entirely plausible that there’s nowhere to retreat and nothing to lose. And then any of the “final” arguments – whatever form of “red button” is available, whether literal or figurative – is justified.
These conclusions will remain firm regardless of what happens in Iran in the coming days. Even if an improved version of Venezuela [see Vol. 78, No. 1-3, pp. 3-7] were to emerge there – with a backroom deal to transfer power to some party acceptable to all sides (this doesn’t seem terribly likely at the moment, but what can be ruled out these days?) – such social engineering would not reassure other regimes opposed to the US. The mechanism for changing governments and bringing a country under control has been laid out; this is a far more ruthless approach than even the “color revolutions” of the 2000s, and opposition to it will grow stronger and become more desperate. With consequences that, under certain circumstances, can be fatal.
If Iran undergoes a transformation as a result of aggression, it will usher the entire regional situation into a new phase. Trump and his inner circle’s vision for the Middle East is quite simple. Israel’s military dominance in the region, combined with the intensification of Israel’s economic ties with the [Persian] Gulf monarchies, primarily serves the interests of the US. Iran is an obstacle here – both as a source of fear for its neighbors and as a state with its own interests and partnerships. If Iran in its current form can be eliminated – or at least dramatically weakened – then the military-commercial arrangement will have a future.
However, the Iraqi experience – with consequences that turned out to be quite different from what had been planned – is likely something worth keeping in mind even now. Iran is too important and long-established a pillar of the entire Middle East for any schemes involving it to go smoothly. According to leaks, Trump hesitated for a long time before deciding to declare war, but he was convinced that the rewards in the event of success would be enormous – control not only over the Gulf region (which goes without saying), but also influence over a significant portion of the surrounding territories, from the Caucasus to Central Asia (and, to some extent, South Asia). And this opens up entirely new commercial opportunities, which lie at the heart of Trump’s and his allies’ worldview. Everything looks good on paper, but in real life, things never turn out as planned.
Well, the overall conclusion isn’t exactly original, but what can you do? The reliance on brute force and coercion in world politics is on the rise. Nothing else matters. Even cynical appeals to morality or ideology are no longer needed. How one feels about this is a personal matter. But it cannot be ignored.