Bombs, Debt, and Sovereignty: The Crisis of International Order and International Law in the 21st Century

The escalation of tensions in the Middle East has once again brought to light a reality that is often overlooked in simplified narratives about international politics: the global system functions less like a tribunal and more like a permanent arena of competition among interests, capabilities, and the structural limits of power. The recent increase in the intensity of the conflict in the region already involves, directly or indirectly, more than eleven countries, transforming the situation into a complex geopolitical theater where military strategies, economic interests, and political calculations constantly overlap.

This process reveals a central characteristic of contemporary wars: they rarely remain confined to the territory where they began. On the contrary, they tend to generate regional and global effects, whether through military alliances, energy dependencies, trade networks, or diplomatic pressures. In a deeply interdependent international system, a regional conflict quickly becomes a systemic problem.

In this context, the military leadership exercised by the United States and Israel imposes a set of costs that go far beyond the battlefield. Contemporary war efforts are not limited to financing direct military operations. They require the maintenance of a complex strategic architecture composed of military bases, missile defense systems, intelligence networks, naval patrols, global logistics, and the protection of allied states.

This apparatus involves extraordinary financial resources and requires a constant capacity for power projection. The broader the area of conflict becomes, the greater the cost of maintaining this operational structure. The protection offered to allied countries becomes, in this scenario, a central element of American strategic credibility. However, recent episodes indicate that such protection is not always capable of preventing attacks or guaranteeing regional stability, producing significant political effects. In geopolitics, the perception of vulnerability can be as impactful as the material damage caused by an attack.

On the other side of the conflict, Iran’s strategy appears to be guided by a different logic. Rather than concentrating confrontation within a single theater of operations, Iran has sought to expand the regional dimension of the conflict, directly or indirectly. By encouraging multiple points of tension through allies, militias, or indirect pressures, Tehran aims to increase the operational costs for its adversary and dilute the American capacity for response.

This strategy of dispersion produces important effects. The greater the number of simultaneous fronts, the greater the need for force redistribution, the higher the logistical strain, and the stronger the diplomatic pressure on the actors involved. The expansion of the conflict transforms a localized war into a structural challenge for the international security architecture.

The European Union finds itself in a particularly complex position within this scenario. Indirect participation in the Western strategic effort, largely mediated through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, entails significant financial and political costs. The increase in military spending has become an unavoidable reality for several European countries, which have already accumulated billions of euros in additional defense investments.

This increase occurs within a delicate economic context. Many European economies face high levels of public debt, moderate economic growth, and growing internal social pressures. At the same time, the war in Ukraine continues to demand significant political, military, and financial resources, prolonging a conflict that has already profoundly altered the security balance on the continent.

This combination of factors — a prolonged war in Eastern Europe, rising tensions in the Middle East, and the need for rearmament — creates structural pressure on European national budgets. The fiscal policies of many countries in the bloc are already facing significant limits, while public debate becomes increasingly sensitive to the expansion of military spending at the expense of social policies.

The economic dimension of these tensions is also visible in the commercial sphere. Transatlantic relations are experiencing a moment of increasing friction, marked by industrial disputes, protectionist policies, and strategic divergences. The signing of a new trade agreement between the European Union and the United States was at one point considered, but it was eventually postponed due to existing disagreements.

At the same time, the trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur has become one of the most controversial issues in recent European political debate. What was initially conceived as a treaty of economic integration based on mutual benefits has evolved into a complex dispute, marked by agricultural pressures, environmental concerns, internal political tensions, and strategic divergences.

In this environment of multiple tensions, an episode involving Spain illustrates particularly clearly the limits and ambiguities of contemporary alliances. The Spanish government faced pressure after refusing to authorize the use of American military bases located on Spanish territory for operations related to the regional conflict.

Spain’s decision is based on the bilateral agreement regulating these bases, signed in 1988, which explicitly establishes that the use of the facilities depends on the authorization of the Spanish government. It is therefore a sovereign right explicitly foreseen in the very treaty that legitimizes the American military presence in the country.

Madrid’s diplomatic response was grounded in the defense of this sovereign right and in the invocation of the principles of International Law. The episode generated reactions within the European Union itself, with several countries expressing support for the Spanish position.

Spain’s relevance in this context goes beyond its geographical position. As the fourth-largest economy in the European Union and an actor with a strong political, cultural, and economic presence in Latin America, the country occupies a strategic role within the European architecture. The solidarity demonstrated by other members of the bloc reveals the sensitivity surrounding the issue of sovereignty within Western alliances.

Even among traditional allies of the United States, the level of enthusiasm for a military escalation in the Middle East appears limited. The United Kingdom has shown caution regarding the expansion of its direct involvement in the conflict, while other European governments have expressed concern about the risks of a regional expansion of the war.

Italy’s position illustrates this caution. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, often associated with political positions close to Washington, publicly expressed discomfort with the possibility of a broader military escalation, stating that Italy is not at war and does not wish to be.

These statements reflect an important political reality: formal military alliances do not eliminate strategic divergences nor neutralize domestic political pressures. Each government must balance international commitments with domestic demands, public opinion, and economic constraints.

Another central element in the current scenario involves the possibility of a future political transition in Iran. Among certain strategic circles in Washington, the idea circulates of encouraging a political change process inspired by models used in other recent international crises, such as the case of Venezuela.

In this context, discussions include the possibility of supporting figures associated with the former Iranian monarchical regime, including the son of the last Shah of Persia, who has already expressed willingness to participate in a potential political transition process.

At the same time, there is opposition within certain American political circles to the possibility of continuity of the current regime through a family succession of the Iranian Supreme Leader. However, Iran’s internal political reality presents characteristics distinct from other scenarios where similar strategies have been attempted. The Iranian political system demonstrates a high degree of institutional resilience and appears largely unwilling to accept external pressure for structural change.

Among the major global powers, reactions to the conflict also follow distinct logics. China finds itself in a particularly sensitive position due to its energy dependence and the importance of Iran within certain strategic oil supply routes. Beijing has declared diplomatic opposition to the conflict but maintains its traditional posture of pragmatism and non-intervention.

Russia, for its part, remains relatively opaque regarding its strategic positioning. Official statements maintain a cautious tone, while the war in Ukraine continues to absorb much of the Kremlin’s strategic attention. Nevertheless, any shift in Western focus could represent an indirect advantage for Moscow.

This global scenario reinforces a central debate in contemporary international politics: the relationship between state sovereignty and the effectiveness of International Law.

There is a recurring tendency to interpret International Law through analogies with the domestic law of states. This comparison, although intuitive, is deeply limited. Domestic law emerges as the result of a social pact that legitimizes the existence of a central authority — the state — capable of exercising the legitimate monopoly of force and ensuring the coercive enforcement of laws.

At the international level, such a structure simply does not exist. There is no global social pact capable of legitimizing a universal central authority. Nor is there an institution capable of systematically enforcing international rules through coercion.

International organizations, including the United Nations, operate under a fundamental principle: they depend on the political will of their member states. International Law is essentially based on the voluntary acceptance of norms by states.

Such acceptance implies, in certain cases, the cession of portions of sovereignty. However, this cession has very specific characteristics: it is limited, strategic, and, above all, reversible. A state may adhere to international treaties, participate in multilateral organizations, and internalize international norms into its domestic legislation. Yet it may also revise those commitments, renegotiate them, or abandon them.

Even processes of legal internalization — which aim to incorporate international obligations into domestic law — remain subject to political and institutional change. Reversibility is a structural characteristic of the international system.

This fact raises fundamental questions about the architecture of global governance. If International Law essentially depends on the will of states, its effectiveness is inevitably conditioned by the correlation of forces within the international system.

In this context, the actions of major powers often redefine the practical limits of international legality. Historical episodes involving military interventions demonstrate that strategic decisions may be taken even in the face of significant legal controversies, as occurred during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the current case, a particularly controversial element involves the internal decision-making process of the United States itself. According to certain legal analysts, the decision to expand military operations may not have been formally submitted to the U.S. Congress, as traditionally required by the American constitutional system regarding the use of force.

This point raises a significant political irony. Even possessing a sufficient political majority to obtain legislative approval, the decision may have been conducted without fully resorting to the formal process established by American domestic law.

This situation reveals a recurring contradiction in the functioning of international politics: the distance between the legal principles invoked in political discourse and the practices effectively adopted by states when strategic interests are at stake.

Ultimately, the current scenario reveals an international system marked by profound structural tensions. Global economic interdependence makes every conflict potentially systemic, while multilateral institutions demonstrate limited capacity to contain disputes among major powers.

State sovereignty continues to be the fundamental organizing principle of international politics. At the same time, contemporary challenges — regional conflicts, energy crises, trade tensions, and technological transformations — demand increasing levels of international cooperation.

This tension between sovereignty and global governance defines many of the strategic dilemmas of the twenty-first century. The war in the Middle East, with all its regional and global implications, is not merely a military conflict. It is also a mirror reflecting the structural limitations of the contemporary international system.

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), headquartered 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 the books 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 has been a guest commentator for the Brazilian radio network CBN Recife. He was also a finalist for the ABANCA Academic Research Award. In addition, he participates in international networks and platforms such as CEDEPEM, ECP, Smart Cities Council, and REPIT.