Between Narratives, Sovereignty, and Contradictions: The War that Exposes the Limits of the International System

The current escalation in the Middle East cannot be understood merely as another episode of regional instability. What is unfolding reveals something deeper: a simultaneous crisis of legitimacy, strategic coherence, and institutional credibility in the contemporary international system.

Unlike previous conflicts, in which political justifications tended to maintain an appearance of internal consensus, the current scenario presents visible fractures within the very decision-making core of major powers.

The escalation in the Middle East reveals not only a regional conflict, but a structural crisis of the international system, marked by internal fissures in the United States, strategic divergences in Europe, economic contradictions, and the weakening of International Law, demonstrating that power and interests prevail over norms and traditional alliances.

Internal rupture in the United States

One of the most revealing developments was the resignation of the head of U.S. counterterrorism, who left his position with a clear statement: Iran did not represent an imminent threat to the country. Moreover, he pointed to the absence of concrete evidence of significant nuclear activity since the bombings carried out the previous year.

Recent information indicates that, following the attacks, U.S. security agencies intensified domestic surveillance without identifying, so far, concrete or immediate threats linked to Iran, which had been engaged in negotiations with the international community. On the other hand, Israeli strikes against the Iranian leadership demonstrate that Israeli intelligence was fully active.

The result is an unusual situation: the official discourse of the White House is beginning to be questioned within the national and international security apparatus itself. This represents a significant shift. Historically, major U.S. military interventions were preceded by a high degree of internal alignment. Today, that consensus appears fragmented.

This fragmentation not only weakens the external narrative but also raises questions about the very criteria that underpin the use of force in the international system.

Europe: between alignment and autonomy

If in the United States the crisis is internal, in Europe it manifests itself at the level of alliances.

The decision of the Spanish government, led by Pedro Sánchez, not to authorize the use of U.S. military bases on its territory marks an important turning point. Supported by the bilateral agreement that regulates these installations, Spain reaffirms a principle often relativized within Western alliances: sovereignty.

Even so, the country adopted a hybrid posture by sending a warship to the region near Cyprus, making clear that its role is limited to logistical support, without direct involvement in the conflict.

What is most relevant, however, is not the Spanish case in isolation, but the political effect it has generated. Italy, traditionally aligned with Washington, adopted a similar position. Subsequently, Germany — the largest economy in Europe — also signaled its non-participation in the war.

A new pattern thus emerges: Europe does not break with the United States, but it no longer follows it automatically.

This shift reveals a structural transformation in alliance behavior. The logic of strategic obedience is giving way to one of conditional alignment.

European discomfort and the crisis of legal discourse

This European repositioning was accompanied by a highly symbolic episode: statements by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, suggesting that Europe would not fully uphold International Law.

The reaction was immediate. The need for clarification demonstrates that, despite strategic pressures, normative legitimacy still carries political weight in Europe. However, the episode also raises a more troubling question: to what extent does International Law remain an effective constraint — rather than merely a rhetorical one — on state behavior?

Energy, war, and strategic contradictions

At the economic level, tensions take on an even more complex dimension with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which significantly altered global energy flows and directly pressured European economies.

In this context, the U.S. decision to allow greater flexibility in the use of Russian oil creates an evident contradiction. Ultimately, this decision opens a new source of revenue for Russia, potentially strengthening its capacity to sustain the war on European soil (Ukraine).

While Europe has borne, for years, the economic and political costs of the war in Ukraine — including sanctions and energy restructuring — Washington adopts measures that, in practice, relativize that effort.

This episode exposes a frequently concealed reality: strategic interests within the Western bloc are not fully convergent, and in times of crisis, these divergences become explicit.

The illusion of a short war

Despite political discourse suggesting an imminent resolution — including statements by Donald Trump — structural indicators point in the opposite direction.

The Pentagon has already requested significant increases in military spending, suggesting preparation for a prolonged conflict. At the same time, analysts have begun discussing the possibility of troop mobilization, which would represent a qualitative escalation of the war.

Furthermore, even after the elimination of a significant portion of Iran’s leadership, the country demonstrates resilience and adaptive capacity. Unlike other contexts, such as Venezuela, the Iranian political system shows no signs of immediate collapse.

This point is crucial: the United States appears to have underestimated the specificities of the Iranian model, applying inadequate analogies to a profoundly different reality in which religion and culture permeate the entire political structure.

Potential expansion and strategic reconfiguration

Another element beginning to emerge — still within the realm of speculation — is the possibility of expanding U.S. pressure to other geopolitical scenarios, such as Cuba.

If confirmed, this would indicate that the current conflict is not an isolated episode, but part of a broader reconfiguration of U.S. global strategy.

In this sense, the war in the Middle East may be only the first theater of a more extensive dynamic.

Conclusion: a system in transformation

Taken together, these factors point to an unavoidable conclusion: we are not facing merely a war, but a structural transformation of the international system.

• Internal consensus within major powers is weakening

• Alliances are becoming conditional

• International Law is losing predictability

• Economic strategies reveal deep contradictions

State sovereignty remains central, but it no longer operates in the same way. Global interdependence amplifies the impact of conflicts, while the ability of international institutions to regulate them becomes increasingly limited.

More than a regional conflict, what we are witnessing is an international system under pressure, where norms, power, and interests no longer converge in a stable manner.

And perhaps this is the most critical point: the world is not only at war — it is undergoing redefinition.

Wesley Sá Teles Guerra is a specialist in international cooperation and paradiplomacy, with solid academic training from internationally recognized institutions. He is the founder of the Center for the Study of International Relations (CERES) in Brazil and currently serves as manager of the Triangular Cooperation Fund between Europe, Latin America, and Africa at the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB), based in Madrid.

Throughout his career, he has studied at institutions such as CPE Barcelona (International Negotiations), FESPSP (International Relations and Political Science), the University of A Coruña – UDC (Master’s in Social Policies and Migration), MIB Massachusetts (MBA in International Marketing), the University of Andorra (Master’s in Smart Cities), and he is currently a PhD candidate in Sociology at UNED (Spain).

He is the author of Cadernos de Paradiplomacia, Paradiplomacy Reviews, and Manual de sobrevivência das Relações Internacionais. He regularly participates in international forums on smart cities, global governance, and paradiplomacy, and is also a guest commentator for the Brazilian radio network CBN Recife. He was a finalist for the ABANCA Academic Research Award and is an active member of international networks and platforms such as CEDEPEM, ECP, Smart Cities Council, and REPIT.