Tehran, the capital of Iran. Credit: Unsplash/Hosein Charbaghi. Source: UN News

By Jacqueline Cabasso and John Burroughs
OAKLAND, California, Mar 4 2026 (IPS)

Operation “Epic Fury” manifests an epic tantrum by President Donald Trump, supported by his sycophantic minions, with dire consequences for the people in the region, peace and security worldwide, the global economy, and the post-World War II international legal order.

The United States/Israeli bombing of Iran clearly violates fundamental rules of international law. It violates the sovereignty of Iran, contrary to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

There is no plausible case that the U.S. and Israel are acting in self-defense against an imminent attack. Nor is regime change an acceptable justification for use of force, as it runs directly counter to the injunction to respect the political independence of states.

Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, briefing reporters outside the Security Council, described the United States’ bombing in Iran as a “dangerous escalation.”
“I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today,” said the UN chief, reiterating that there is no military solution. “This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.”

It is striking that the Trump administration has made no real effort to use multilateral mechanisms or to invoke international law. Both by its action and by its contempt for international law, the administration is accelerating the erosion of basic rules relating to use of force that has been underway for nearly three decades following the end of the Cold War.

The erosion of the legal framework formally limiting the use of armed force has been a long process, punctuated in the 21st century by increasingly frequent shocks of large-scale wars launched by major powers with less and less regard for international law and institutions.

The first of these was the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the stage set by the long, massive U.S. presence in and around Iraq in the 1990s and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. Unlike the Trump administration, the George W. Bush administration at least gestured toward providing an international law rationale for the invasion—but built its justifications for war on a foundation of lies.

Then came the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which both lacked any serious international law justification. There have been other instances of aggression in this century, such as the recent U.S. invasion of Venezuela to abduct its president. But U.S. actions in relation to Iraq, those of Russia in Ukraine, and the U.S./Israel bombing of Iran stand out as major developments in the erosion of rules on use of force.

Concerning Iran’s nuclear program, prior to the bombing it was not at a stage of development that provided any basis for a claim of self-defense. In general, it has appeared for many years that Iran had a uranium enrichment capability, in part in order to preserve the option of acquiring nuclear weapons at some point in the future, but had not made the acquisition decision.

And it was the United States, during the first Trump administration, that unilaterally withdrew from the painstakingly negotiated 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an international agreement that placed effective and verifiable restraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

Discussions of Iran’s program generally do not address the fact that Israel has a robust nuclear arsenal. In the long run it is not practical to allow some states to have nuclear weapons and to deny them to others. The most straightforward way to deal with problems posed by the actual proliferation of nuclear weapons, as in the case of North Korea, or their potential proliferation, as in the case of Iran, is to move expeditiously toward the global abolition of nuclear arms.

Another at least partial way is to build new regional nuclear weapons free zones. That approach has indeed been tried in the case of the Middle East. Both in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in the United Nations, there have been serious efforts to get negotiation of a Middle East zone underway, with Iran’s willing participation.

However, Israel and the United States have boycotted these efforts. This severely undercuts the legitimacy of their position as they claim to act to stop a menacing Iranian nuclear program.

What should be the response to these developments?

First, the invasion of Iran should be condemned as unlawful aggression, and the basic UN Charter rules should be defended, with the aim of at least preserving them for the future.

Second, it should be recognized that the world is undergoing a major transformation marked by the resurgence of authoritarian nationalism, with authoritarian ethno-nationalist factions in power or constituting significant political forces in many countries, including all of the nuclear-armed states.

There is a need for realism about the nature of the challenge, and for new thinking and innovative forms of advocacy and politics for a more fair, democratic, peaceful, and post-nationalist world.

Jacqueline Cabasso is the Executive Director of Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California; John Burroughs is a member of the organization’s Board of Directors.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: ICAN/Tim Wright

By Jacqueline Cabasso
OAKLAND, California, USA, Jul 1 2025 (IPS)

July 16, 2025, will mark the 80th anniversary of “Trinity,” the first nuclear test detonation, at Alamagordo, New Mexico, and August 6 and 9 will mark the 80th anniversaries of the United States atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather than commemorating those somber anniversaries as a grim reminder of the past, this year they serve as a foreboding warning of what may be to come.

The Russian Federation’s nuclear threats in its war on Ukraine have made clear that the dangers of nuclear war are real and present. Tensions around the world, including between the United States and China over Taiwan and the South China Sea, and the chronic security crises on the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East, constitute other potential nuclear flashpoints.

The recent armed clashes between India and Pakistan have demonstrated that the near-term risks of nuclear war are multifaceted and global.

Reflecting the urgency of this moment, on June 20, the day before the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear technology infrastructure, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) International Affairs Standing Committee unanimously adopted a timely new resolution, “Urging the United States to Lead the World Back From the Brink of Nuclear War and Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race.” It was officially adopted at the closing session of the USCM’s 93rd Annual Meeting in Tampa, Florida, on June 22.

During the committee meeting, Acting Chair, Mayor Martha Guerrero, of West Sacramento, California, one of the resolution’s cosponsors, noted, “In an increasingly interconnected world, mayors are stepping into the role of diplomats…. U.S. and international mayors are shaping foreign policy from the ground up.” This is the twentieth consecutive year that the USCM has adopted a resolution submitted by U.S. members of Mayors for Peace.

The USCM is the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000. Resolutions adopted at its annual meetings become USCM official policy that guide the organization’s advocacy efforts for the coming year.

The new Mayors for Peace resolution points out that world military expenditures rose to $2718 billion in 2024, and that the U.S. accounted for 37% of global military spending, more than the next nine countries combined, more than three times as much as China, and nearly seven times as much as Russia.

It notes that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that, if carried out, U.S. plans to operate, sustain, and modernize its strategic and tactical nuclear delivery systems and the weapons they carry would cost a total of $946 billion over the 2025–2034 period, an average of about $95 billion a year, an amount 25 percent ($190 billion) larger than its 2023 estimate of $756 billion for the 2023–2032 period.

In response to these escalating nuclear dangers and spiraling costs, the USCM “calls on the President to lead a global effort to move the world back from the nuclear brink, halt and reverse a global nuclear arms race, and prevent nuclear war, by engaging in good faith negotiations with the other eight nuclear armed states, in particular the Russian Federation and China, to halt any further buildup of nuclear arsenals and to verifiably reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals according to negotiated timetables; seeking the renunciation by all nuclear-armed states of the option of using nuclear weapons.

First; implementing effective checks and balances on the Commander in Chief’s sole authority to order the use of U.S. nuclear weapons; ending the Cold War-era ‘hair-trigger alert’ posture; ending plans to produce and deploy new nuclear warheads and delivery systems; and maintaining the de facto global moratorium on nuclear explosive testing.”

Second, the USCM also “calls on the President to protect communities and workers affected by nuclear weapons by fully remediating the deadly legacy of environmental contamination from past and current nuclear weapons testing, development, production, storage, and maintenance activities, and by providing health monitoring, compensation, and medical care to those who have and will be harmed by nuclear weapons research, testing, and production, including through an expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act program.”

Third, the USCM also “calls on the President to actively plan a just economic transition for the civilian and military workforce involved in the development, testing, production, management, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons and for the communities that are economically dependent on nuclear weapons laboratories, production facilities, and military bases.”

And it urges Congress to pass H. Res. 317, “Urging the United States to Lead the World Back From the Brink of Nuclear War and Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race,” which encompasses the above points, introduced by Representative Jim McGovern (MA) on April 9, 2025.

Finally, the resolution calls on the Administration and Congress to cut increases in military and nuclear weapons spending and to restore funding for programs that are critical to American cities, including the Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program, and to preserve and strengthen Medicaid as a matter of public safety.

The resolution’s lead sponsor, Mayor Quentin Hart of Waterloo, Iowa, commented, “As an elected official and original sponsor, I recognize the value of human life and our duty as leaders to leave a better world for future generations. In this heightened hour of conflict and division this resolution rings as a reminder that we have so much work to do”.

“It is essential to examine how we use nuclear weapons and to foster meaningful global dialogue to prevent nuclear conflict and promote peace. I am honored to stand alongside fellow mayors worldwide as a member of Mayors for Peace, advocating for a safer, more peaceful future.”

As recognized in the resolution, Mayors for Peace, led by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is working for a world without nuclear weapons, safe and resilient cities, and a culture of peace. As of June 1, 2025, Mayors for Peace has grown to 8,487 cities in 166 countries and territories, with 230 U.S. members.

The USCM has once again charted a responsible path. It’s long past time for the federal government to listen to the elected representatives who are closest to the people. This resolution could not be timelier – or more urgent.

The shared common-sense commitment of mayors across the country and around the world to the global elimination of nuclear weapons is a beacon of hope in these dark times.

The 2025 USCM Mayors for Peace resolution was sponsored by Mayor Quentin Hart, of Waterloo, Iowa, and cosponsored by Mayor Lacey Beaty, of Beaverton, Oregon; Mayor LaToya Cantrell, of New Orleans, Louisiana; Mayor Brad Cavanagh, of Dubuque, Iowa; Mayor Joy Cooper, of Hallandale Beach, Florida; Mayor Malik Evans, of Rochester, New York; Mayor Martha Guerrero, of West Sacramento, California; Mayor Adena Ishii, of Berkeley, California; Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, of Burnsville, Minnesota; Mayor Kim Norton, of Rochester, Minnesota; Mayor Andy Schor, of Lansing, Michigan; Mayor Matt Tuerk, of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Mayor Ellen Kamei, of Mountain View, California; Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson, of Riverside, California; Mayor Joshua Garcia, of Holyoke, Massachusetts; and Mayor S.M. Fazlul Kabir, of College Park, Maryland.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: