US–Israel vs. Iran War: Is the United Nations Collapsing? -By John Kokome

As tensions erupt into open confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran, the world is confronted not only with the spectre of a wider Middle East war, but with a deeper and more unsettling question: Is the United Nations losing its authority or worse, collapsing under the weight of great-power politics?

The modern international system was built on the ashes of World War II. At its heart lies the UN, founded to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Central to that promise is the prohibition of the use of force against sovereign states, except in self-defence or with authorisation from the United Nations Security Council. This legal framework, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, was designed to ensure that power would be restrained by law.

Today, that framework is under extraordinary strain.

The latest escalation, involving direct strikes, retaliatory missile attacks, cyber operations, and regional proxy mobilisation, represents one of the most dangerous confrontations in decades. The rhetoric on all sides has invoked self-defence and deterrence. Yet the absence of unified Security Council authorisation or decisive multilateral consensus has reignited long-standing criticism that when major powers are involved, international law becomes selectively applied.

The paralysis of the Security Council is not new. Veto power, granted to its five permanent members, was intended as a pragmatic concession to geopolitical realities in 1945. But in moments like this, it appears less a stabilising mechanism and more a structural flaw. When permanent members are themselves parties to a conflict directly or indirectly, the council’s ability to act decisively shrinks dramatically. Emergency sessions yield speeches and symbolic resolutions, but rarely enforcement.

For many nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and parts of Europe, the optics are troubling. Smaller states are routinely reminded of their obligations under international law. Sanctions regimes are swiftly imposed on some governments for territorial violations. Yet when powerful actors engage in cross-border military operations, accountability mechanisms seem far less certain.

This perception gap is dangerous.

International institutions do not survive on military force; they survive on legitimacy. If global audiences begin to see multilateralism as a façade for geopolitical rivalry rather than a genuine constraint on power, confidence erodes. And once legitimacy weakens, compliance follows.

However, declaring the UN “dead” would be premature, and perhaps strategically misguided. Even amid geopolitical deadlock, UN agencies continue to coordinate humanitarian relief, monitor refugee flows, document human rights conditions, and facilitate quiet diplomacy. In war zones, blue-helmet peacekeepers still stand between combatants. Aid convoys still move under UN flags. Negotiations still occur in corridors far from the headlines.

The problem, then, is not institutional disappearance but institutional fragility.

The confrontation between Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran illustrates a broader shift in global order. Power is diffusing. Regional blocs are asserting autonomy. Strategic alliances are recalibrating. In this emerging multipolar environment, consensus is harder to achieve and unilateral action more tempting.

Yet history offers a sobering lesson: when multilateral systems weaken, instability grows. The interwar period of the 20th century showed what happens when international governance structures lose authority. Rival blocs form. Arms races accelerate. Miscalculation becomes more likely.

The stakes today are even higher. Unlike 1945, the world now lives under the shadow of advanced missile systems, cyber warfare, and nuclear capability. A regional war between the United States, Israel, and Iran would not remain neatly contained. Energy markets, shipping lanes, financial systems, and fragile neighboring states would all feel the shockwaves.

So is the United Nations collapsing?

Not yet. But it is undeniably being tested.

Its survival depends on whether member states, particularly the most powerful, recommit to the principle that no nation is above international law. Reform discussions, including Security Council expansion and veto restraint in cases of mass conflict, can no longer remain theoretical debates. They must become urgent diplomatic priorities.

The alternative is a world where alliances replace institutions, deterrence replaces diplomacy, and might quietly replaces right.

The current crisis is more than a regional war; it is a referendum on whether global governance can adapt to 21st-century realities. If the UN fails to evolve, it risks irrelevance. But if it reforms, and the major powers choose restraint over escalation, it could yet emerge strengthened.

The future of the international order may well depend on which path is chosen now.

John Kokome

A Communications Strategist and Public Affairs Analyst writes from Lagos

kokomejohn@yahoo.com