US President Donald Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran has many international law experts questioning whether the world order established after World War II is actually working.
In his second presidential term, Trump appears to be exercising complete power without restraint, and the system of checks and balances set out in the U.S. Constitution appears unable to limit his power.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has ordered two unprovoked attacks on independent nations, Venezuela and Iran. He threatened to annex Greenland. a strained traditional alliance with Europe; weakened the United Nations. and disrupted international trade with his massive tariffs.
Previous constraints set by the United Nations system and international law appear to have been replaced by what Trump told reporters in January was a vision of power limited only by “his own morality.”
So what checks does Trump have? Is he really free to attack nations, set tariffs at will, and essentially dictate global policy as the leader of the world’s most powerful nation? If so, why are so many observers now saying his war against Iran is stalled?
Did international law provide any kind of restraint to Mr. Trump?
Not so far.
Analysts say his attacks on Venezuela and Iran are both clear violations of international law and the United Nations Charter, primarily the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2, Section 4.
Discussions about international law, particularly how it has been adjusted over the decades to support the interests of the West and the United States, are by no means new. However, experts say that with President Trump’s inauguration, even the conceptual constraints of international law are being trampled upon.
President Trump himself has ignored international law, saying in January that it was up to him to decide when and to what extent international law applied to the United States and his actions.
“In many ways, international law has historically served U.S. interests, and self-interest should continue to drive U.S. support for a rules-based order organized around the core principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin who has served at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, told Al Jazeera. agenda. ”
“In the current geopolitical climate, the ability of international law to meaningfully constrain US actions under Donald Trump has proven negligible,” Becker added. “This situation is unlikely to change, especially given the failure of other states to present a united front against President Trump’s gangsterism.”
What about the United Nations?
There aren’t that many.
The role of the United Nations since its founding has been to promote dialogue rather than conflict and provide a global response to international challenges. But like many presidential organizations, the relationship between President Trump and his corpse is rarely this simple. But he has not only sidelined U.N. aid operations in the Gaza Strip and appeared to be seeking to replace the agency with a members-only peace commission, while occasionally seeking legitimacy for the U.N. for many of his projects, including his call in August for the U.N. to establish an aid office in Haiti to limit immigration to the United States.
But Richard Gowan, who served as UN executive director of the Crisis Management Group from 2019 to 2025, said while UN support could be helpful, it was clear Trump had no intention of adhering to the UN Charter.
“Other UN member states see the United States as regularly violating international law, but they often refrain from loudly criticizing the United States in forums such as the Security Council for fear of repercussions from President Trump,” Gowan said. “In short, President Trump has learned that he can circumvent the United Nations when necessary and sometimes even as a tool.”
What about other powers?
Until a certain point.
A number of countries known as “middle powers,” including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and other Western European nations, have so far succeeded in blocking President Trump’s efforts to unilaterally annex Greenland. But European powers have failed to condemn President Trump’s unnecessary wars against Venezuela and Iran, exposing their double standards in conflicts in the Middle East and the Global South.
Many analysts predict that a withdrawal of investment in the United States by Gulf states, which have borne the brunt of Iranian retaliation for U.S. and Israeli attacks, could also hasten the end of the war.
“Middle powers can create friction, but they cannot exercise veto power,” said H.A. Hellyer of the Royal Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London. “Collective action by European governments, Gulf states, and others can raise costs and elicit tactical adjustments. Structural imbalances remain. The United States maintains decisive military, financial, and institutional advantages.”
Hellyer added that smaller countries often avoid risks, follow the United States or seek protection from regional allies, and while pressure has been strongest in Europe, where the United States is no longer seen as a reliable security guarantor, the idea of establishing an alternative remains a hurdle. “The logic of an alternative model is acceptable, but the ability to implement it quickly is not. There will be a long gap. Gulf Arab states are in a similar position,” he said.
In the meantime, Trump and the United States are free to act as they please. “These are exposure management strategies that will be pursued until we can reduce our structural dependence on the U.S. national security umbrella,” he said.
China and Russia have so far criticized violations of international law without overt escalation, while India and other members of the BRICS bloc have remained largely silent, suggesting they prefer strategic ambiguity to direct confrontation with the United States.
What about domestic detention?
not much.
The U.S. Supreme Court was able to block President Trump’s use of tariffs to control much of his foreign policy by rewarding allies with lower tariffs and imposing punitive import duties on critics.
But other traditional guardrails, such as Congress, are absent. The Department of Justice has provided unwavering support to the president. And even the news media has suppressed presidential ambitions. This is nothing new. Previous presidents have ordered wars without Congressional approval. But in President Trump’s case, analysts suggested it was systematic.
Analysts such as Kim Lane Schepere, a professor of international studies at Princeton University, said powerful U.S. institutions have largely failed to hold the Trump administration accountable.
“His strong base of supporters says they are willing to increase gas prices in the short term if it leads to a government friendly to Iran in the long term. His opponents are his opponents in everything, so he is just ignoring them and threatening them,” Schepere told Al Jazeera.
“Trump started saying he was minimizing costs because he cared more about market performance than public opinion, and he started saying the Iran war was a short-term thing to boost the market again.”
“What America is sorely lacking is leadership against Trump. Congress has failed in its constitutional duty to restrain him. The Supreme Court is lining his pockets because it packed the court during the president’s first term. Lower court judges are heroic and surprised under severe pressure. “I will not take questions about foreign policy, given that it is difficult for anyone to ‘stand’ in international affairs,” she said, referring to the requirement that litigants must show actual or future direct harm to themselves in order to file a lawsuit. To the court.
He noted that although lower federal courts are limited to foreign policy, they have repeatedly checked executive overreach on immigration, sanctions designations and emergency powers, often under intense political pressure.
So why are so many people saying Trump’s wars are a dead end?
In the eyes of many observers, traditional restraints will not apply, but market forces like gravity will always apply, as President Trump, with no clear war objectives or clear solutions, is at risk of losing control of a conflict that appears to be expanding and expanding into economic areas clearly not foreseen by his administration.
President Trump has repeatedly said the war will end soon, even though none of his purported war goals have been achieved.
His attack on Iran, Tehran’s counterattack and threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes, sent oil prices soaring.
The International Energy Agency’s decision on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels of oil from international oil reserves failed to keep prices in check. Iran has warned that oil prices could reach $200 per barrel if it continues to occupy the waterway.
“Ultimately, the factors most likely to constrain Donald Trump’s neo-imperialist impulses, or his willingness to pursue the policy goals of those who have his ear, are the economic fallout from the disruption of global energy markets and the widespread disillusionment of American voters with his globe-trotting militarism, rampant self-dealing, and callous disregard for the human cost of war,” Becker said.
