News references**: international news reports, commentary on current affairs, analysis of international politics and official statements.
After the United States claimed airstrikes on more than 85 targets of the "Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliates," the U.S.-Iran relationship became even more complicated and dangerous, even as both sides publicly stated that they had no intention of going to war. The airstrike not only politically exacerbated tensions between the United States and Iran, but also caused widespread controversy at the legal and moral levels.
This move by the United States violates the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and brazenly challenges the sovereignty of Iraq and Syria and the basic norms of international law. While claiming to fight against "Iranian-backed forces", it has led to the ** of innocent civilians, exposing the shortcomings of hegemonic policies in the international order. The international community should express its unequivocal opposition and condemnation of such acts, abide by the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.
Behind this conflict is a complex geopolitical landscape, and the competition between the United States and Iran for influence in the region can be said to be one of the main lines of the evolution of the situation in the Middle East in recent decades. There is a structural contradiction between US hegemonism and the pursuit of global strategic interests and the independent rights and interests of regional powers. In the process of maintaining its global hegemony, the United States continues to resort to economic sanctions and military strikes, the marginal effect of which is weakening and is increasingly out of step with the complex and rapidly changing international situation.
U.S. military action is often followed by statements that it has no intention of pursuing a broader conflict, but is unwilling to reduce tensions through self-restraint and policy adjustments. This ambivalent attitude has led the United States itself to become more deeply involved in the Middle East conflict, rather than avoiding it. This shows that the US strategy in the Middle East is facing serious challenges.
The BBC's revelations show that there are also serious concerns about the current Middle East policy in Western countries, with many warning of their country's policy of "serious violations of international law" in the Gaza conflict. This unprecedented internal divide is the latest sign of the mistakes of US policy toward the Middle East within the Western allies.
Although the US influence and military presence in the Middle East are strong, the reality shows that US policy in the region is no longer viable. On the issue of Palestine and Israel, the international consensus lies in the fact that what cannot be ignored is the aspirations of the Palestinian people and the irreplaceability of the two-state solution. If the United States fails to recognize this, the "attack-retaliation" cycle will be difficult to break, and Washington will not be able to calmly deal with the situation on the "brink of war".
The United States has been imposing sweeping sanctions on Iran for years, and the direct military action now being taken reflects the limited effectiveness of the sanctions approach. The United States seems to have recognized this, but its long-standing dependence has not diminished. This strategic dilemma not only affects the United States itself, but also becomes a major regional and even global problem.
After analyzing the motives behind the US actions and their impact on the situation in the Middle East, we have to point out that the model of hegemonism and unilateral actions is no longer applicable to the current multipolar and rule-of-law international relations. Dealing with conflicts in the Middle East requires multilateral cooperation and dialogue, not unilateral military intervention. Regional and global stability requires new thinking and strategies to maintain.
The above content is only the author's personal opinion, and does not have any political overtones and does not represent any political position.