ED Shockwaves from Tehran

Members of the group Workers’ Solidarity and other organizations hold a press conference in front of the U.S. Embassy in central Seoul, Monday, condemning the U.S. and Israel for their attack on Iran. Yonhap

In a dramatic escalation that has sent shockwaves through the Middle East and beyond, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Tehran and other Iranian cities, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The strikes, carried out on Saturday, mark one of the most consequential and controversial uses of force in the region in decades. Iran has responded with retaliatory attacks against U.S. bases and Israel, raising the specter of an expanding conflict. The region now stands on a knife’s edge, and the foundations of international order face a severe test.

Whatever one’s beliefs about Iran’s ruling system, this action demands sober scrutiny. The targeted killing of a sitting head of state, particularly absent clear evidence of an imminent attack, poses grave questions about legality, legitimacy and precedent. The U.S. administration has framed the strike as a preventive act to forestall Iran’s nuclear ambitions and an opportunity for the Iranian people to “reclaim” their country. Yet preventive war, invoked without indisputable proof of immediate threat and without explicit congressional authorization, rests on perilous ground.

History offers cautionary lessons. The rationale of preemption has been invoked before in the Middle East, most notably in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction that were never substantiated. That intervention reshaped the region, but not in the ways its architects had promised. It unleashed instability, sectarian violence and strategic vacuums — the consequences of which reverberate to this day. To embrace a doctrine where force replaces diplomacy risks eroding the very norms that have, however imperfectly, constrained international violence since the end of World War II.

None of this absolves Tehran of responsibility for its own conduct. Iran’s record of repressing domestic dissent, its support for armed proxies and its contentious nuclear program have long drawn international condemnation. Reports that some Iranians greeted news of Khamenei’s death with applause underscore the depth of domestic disaffection. But internal repression and geopolitical rivalry do not automatically confer legal or moral license for regime decapitation by external powers. The principles of sovereignty and nonintervention are not optional; they are the bedrock of global stability. If powerful states dispense with them at will, smaller states will draw their own conclusions about the utility of law versus force.

The strategic risks are immediate and profound. Iran has begun moves to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply transits. Any sustained disruption would send energy prices soaring, rattle financial markets and strain fragile postpandemic recoveries worldwide. Insurance premiums, shipping costs and currency volatility may rise in tandem. For energy-importing nations, the economic consequences could be swift and severe.

Beyond markets, the human stakes are acute. Civilians across Iran, Israel and neighboring states now face the prospect of sustained hostility. Foreign nationals working or residing in the region are at heightened risk. Governments must prioritize the protection and evacuation of their citizens where necessary and coordinate closely to prevent miscalculation. Once cycles of retaliation gain momentum, they are notoriously difficult to contain.

The geopolitical reverberations extend further still. The killing of a long-entrenched supreme leader will trigger an uncertain succession process within Iran, potentially intensifying factional struggles and hardening attitudes toward the West. It may also influence calculations in other capitals. Leaders of states pursuing or possessing nuclear capabilities will study these events closely. Some may conclude that nuclear deterrence is the only reliable safeguard against external intervention. Such a lesson, if widely internalized, would undermine decades of nonproliferation efforts and make the world more dangerous.

U.S. President Donald Trump has described Khamenei’s death as a historic opportunity and reiterated that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. Preventing nuclear proliferation is indeed a vital international objective. But durable solutions to proliferation challenges have historically depended on sustained diplomacy, verification regimes and multilateral pressure, not unilateral acts that risk igniting broader wars. Military force may delay a program; it rarely resolves the underlying political conflict.

At this perilous juncture, restraint and diplomacy are not signs of weakness but indications of strategic wisdom. The international community, including major powers with influence in Tehran and Washington, must press urgently for de-escalation, renewed dialogue and mechanisms to prevent further miscalculation. Channels of communication, even between adversaries, are indispensable in moments of crisis.

The alternative is a Middle East sliding toward protracted confrontation, with cascading consequences for global security and economic stability. Power can destroy swiftly. Building a stable peace, by contrast, requires patience, legitimacy and respect for shared rules. If those rules are allowed to erode further, the cost will not be borne by one region alone, but by an increasingly fragmented and volatile world.