Israel and Iran are no longer only two adversaries exchanging bombs and threats in their fight. It is now a far more dangerous and complicated long-term crisis that affects the entire world. Deeply interested are other nations, even those hundreds of miles away. Whether it is by sharing intelligence, selling weapons, or offering political cover, this raises a serious question: What legal and moral responsibilities do these outside players carry?
In recent days, we have witnessed Israeli airstrikes on Iranian sites, precise assaults, Iranian missile launches in return and US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is not a simple battlefield; it is a wide conflict fought with drones, cyberattacks, covert operations and proxy groups. Many of these efforts are supported by foreign countries, which provide technology, military equipment or political backing. Their role may appear indirect, but in international law, that does not render them innocent bystanders.
According to the United Nation’s Charter, no state may threaten or use force against the sovereignty of another state. That rule also applies to third-party states, particularly when they become involved in situations that potentially exacerbate a conflict. Yes, governments have the right to protect themselves under Article 51 of the Charter, but this right is not unlimited. Self-defense must be a response to an actual armed attack that is both necessary and appropriate. That is, if a third state assists one side in claiming “self-defense” without meeting those stringent standards, it may be entering into illegal territory.
Then there is international humanitarian law, a set of principles intended to mitigate the horrors of conflict. According to the Geneva Conventions, countries must not only adhere to the regulations themselves but also ensure that others comply with them as well. That sounds like a high concept, but in practice, it means something simple: if you are assisting someone in fighting a war, you have a responsibility to ensure that they are in accordance with the laws of war. You cannot simply hand over weapons or intelligence and then turn your back if there is a real risk that your support will lead to war crimes like bombing civilians or destroying civilian infrastructure.
Think of it like this: lending your friend your car when you know they are going to commit a significant crime not only makes you a lousy friend, but you may also be an accomplice. In international law, particularly about the regulations governing state accountability, the same reasoning holds true.
However, the story does not end with missiles and bombs. Although sanctions are often viewed as a nonviolent alternative to conflict, they can also have deadly repercussions. Long-standing economic sanctions against Iran have had a significant negative impact on the general public, leading to food insecurity, pharmaceutical shortages and the breakdown of vital services. International human rights law prohibits collective punishment, which occurs when measures like these disproportionately harm civilians compared to the intended target, in this case, the government.
And here’s where things become even more complicated: human rights law does not end at the national border. Suppose a government’s activities, such as sanctions, arms sales, or surveillance exports, cause harm overseas. In that case, it still has a responsibility to protect basic rights, including life, dignity, and access to necessities. Even private enterprises that sell tools for monitoring or repression in conflict zones might contribute to the situation if they turn a blind eye.
The truth is that third countries are not merely watching the crisis unfold; they are actively shaping it. Their fingerprints may be found everywhere, whether in official alliances such as the US-Israel security partnership, secret intelligence arrangements or backroom negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program. That influence comes with power, but it also comes with responsibility.
We live in an era where warfare unfolds in new forms, with drones replacing tanks, hackers replacing armies and militias replacing uniforms. However, the law has not disappeared. International law still exists to establish boundaries, protect citizens and hold governments accountable. Third-party responsibilities are not abstract concepts; they are actual obligations with real repercussions. And they are more important now than ever.
So, the question facing many of these countries is clear: Will they be part of the problem or part of the solution? Will they stand for legality and human dignity or hide behind distance and deniability? Their choices today could either fuel more violence or help chart a path to restraint and eventually, peace.
- Beyond the Battlefield - 27/07/2025
- The War of Narratives - 21/06/2025
