The decision by former United States President Donald Trump to launch a war against Iran has left many international law experts questioning whether the post-World War II global order is effectively functioning. During his second presidential term, Trump has allegedly wielded power without restraint, while the system of checks and balances enshrined in the US Constitution appears to be failing to limit his authority. Since his inauguration in January 2025, Trump has ordered unprovoked attacks on independent states Venezuela and Iran, threatened to annex Greenland, strained traditional alliances with Europe, undermined the United Nations, and rattled international trade with sweeping tariffs.
According to analysts, Trump's attacks on Venezuela and Iran were in clear breach of international law and the UN Charter, particularly the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4). Professor Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin noted that the capacity of international law to constrain US action under Trump has proven negligible, and this is unlikely to change given the failure of other states to form a united front against Trump's alleged "gangsterism."
The United Nations has also failed to effectively check Trump's actions. Richard Gowan, the Crisis Group's UN director from 2019 to 2025, stated that while other UN members see the US regularly breaking international law, they often refrain from criticizing Washington due to fear of blowback from Trump. Thus, Trump is learning he can sidestep the UN when convenient and use it for instrumental purposes without consequence.
So-called "middle powers" such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and France have managed to push back against Trump's attempts to annex Greenland, but their failure to condemn the unprovoked wars against Venezuela and Iran exposes double standards in conflicts in the Middle East and the Global South. Analysts suggest that Gulf states withdrawing investments from the US may hasten the war's end, yet the US retains decisive military and financial primacy.
Traditional domestic restraints within the US have similarly proven ineffective. Congress, the Department of Justice, and the news media have failed to contain the president's ambitions. Princeton University professor Kim Lane Scheppele highlighted that Trump's supporters are willing to tolerate short-term gasoline price increases for long-term goals, while his opponents are ignored. The judicial system is limited in foreign policy matters due to difficulties in establishing standing for international cases.
Many observers argue that Trump, lacking clear war aims, risks losing control of a conflict that is expanding into unforeseen economic areas. Iran's retaliatory strikes and threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz have caused oil prices to surge, disrupting global energy markets. Becker suggested that the factors most likely to constrain Trump's neoimperialist impulses are the economic fallout from energy market disruptions and growing disenchantment among US voters with his globe-trotting militarism.
Source: www.aljazeera.com