Rogue Doctrine: Netanyahu’s Warpath and the Death of Restraint

On June 13, 2025, the Middle East’s volatile balance was violently disrupted by a sweeping Israeli air campaign that targeted Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure with unprecedented force. Dubbed Operation Rising Lion, the assault marked a seismic shift in the region’s strategic dynamics, plunging two long-time adversaries into direct military confrontation and triggering global anxiety about the future of peace and international norms. The campaign, which included over 200 Israeli warplanes striking more than 100 targets across Iranian territory, eliminated senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders and leading nuclear scientists, among them Hossein Salami, commander of the IRGC.

What makes this moment so perilous is not just the scale of the attacks, but their timing and unilateral nature. Launched on the eve of long-anticipated US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman, the operation appears to have been executed without American consultation, signaling a dramatic deviation from past regional security coordination. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unequivocal in stating that Washington had no role in the attacks, underlining Israel’s strategic independence in executing a campaign that could reshape the regional order.

Yet, beneath the military strikes and political bravado lies a deeper crisis—one not only of regional security, but of the very architecture of international law.

A Chronicle of Violations: Israel’s Record Under International Law

The global community has long scrutinized Israel’s conduct, with countless international institutions condemning its consistent defiance of international norms. Over the decades, Israel has become emblematic of a state operating with functional immunity, despite being in continuous violation of foundational international legal instruments.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a landmark advisory opinion, declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories unlawful, emphasizing that the acquisition of territory by force directly contravenes the core tenets of the UN Charter. Israel’s annexationist policies—especially in East Jerusalem and the West Bank—have been judged not only illegitimate but inherently destabilizing.

Moreover, Israel has been cited for violating over 30 UN Security Council resolutions, an ignominious distinction that underscores the gravity of its transgressions. These include well-documented breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, encompassing collective punishment, unlawful transfer of populations, and systemic targeting of civilian infrastructure. The construction of settlements, despite being declared illegal by the international community, continues unabated.

In a particularly damning development, the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. They stand accused of crimes against humanity—ranging from murder and torture to the starvation of civilian populations and attacks on healthcare facilities. UN experts have called Israel’s conduct an “assault on the foundations of international law,” a rare and grave indictment from the world’s foremost legal authorities.

Under the United Nations Charter, Article 51, every sovereign state possesses an inalienable right to self-defense in the event of armed aggression. Iran’s foreign ministry has invoked this principle in justifying what it calls its “total retaliation” policy in response to Israel’s aggression.

The legal doctrine of self-defense—especially in light of a large-scale, premeditated strike on sovereign soil—is neither abstract nor optional. It is entrenched in international law and widely acknowledged in both customary legal norms and scholarly interpretation. The proportionality principle embedded in the doctrine allows for responsive force that matches the scale and immediacy of the threat. Given the scope of Israel’s attacks—targeting military leadership, nuclear facilities, and key energy sites—Iran’s legal position to retaliate is undeniably supported by established precedent.

While Iran’s casualties continue to rise—80 dead as of the third day of conflict—the Islamic Republic argues that it is responding not only to an act of war but to an existential assault on its sovereignty and national dignity.

Israel’s rationale for launching this high-stakes offensive has been cloaked in the language of “prevention.” According to official statements, the strike was aimed at thwarting what it claims was an imminent Iranian plan to develop nuclear weapons. Yet the credibility of this claim crumbles under scrutiny.

The operation, with its deep targeting precision and high-level assassinations, clearly required extensive planning—likely stretching back months, if not years. A genuine preventive strike, in international legal terms, must stem from an immediate, overwhelming threat—not a hypothetical one. No such emergency appears to have existed. Even Israel’s attempt to anchor its justification in the June 12 IAEA report, which noted Iran’s past NPT violations, falls flat. That report did not introduce any novel findings; it reiterated information long known to international stakeholders.

What’s more telling is the breadth of Israeli targets. The operation did not limit itself to nuclear sites but extended to missile bases, energy infrastructure, and political figures. The assassination of Ali Shamkhani, former defense minister and key interlocutor in Iran-U.S. nuclear negotiations, points to objectives far beyond disarmament. It suggests a deliberate effort to sabotage diplomatic avenues and cripple Iran’s strategic coherence.

This tactic of “strategic decapitation” is not new. Israel has historically employed targeted assassinations in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria to destabilize adversarial leaderships. But applying the same model to a sovereign nation of 85 million people with entrenched institutions is both reckless and legally dubious.

Beyond the veneer of military necessity lies a more ominous motivation: the quest for regime change in Tehran. Prime Minister Netanyahu did not mince words when he appealed to the “proud people of Iran” to rise against their “evil and repressive regime.” It’s a familiar refrain in geopolitical narratives—one that assumes that external military pressure will catalyze internal rebellion.

But this assumption reflects a grave misreading of Iranian political dynamics. While many Iranians are indeed critical of the Islamic Republic, nationalism runs deep. Even the fiercest domestic critics tend to unify in the face of foreign aggression. Much like Israelis who, despite political rifts, rallied behind their flag during the strikes, Iranians have responded with patriotic solidarity.

The notion that Israeli bombs could ignite a revolution in Iran mirrors the delusional logic behind similar ideas in Gaza—that sufficient collective punishment would turn Palestinians against Hamas. Such strategies are not only morally repugnant but demonstrably ineffective.

If deterrence, disarmament, or democratic transition are not credible explanations, what then motivated the Israeli strike?

The answer may lie in Netanyahu’s increasingly precarious domestic and international standing. Facing mounting international condemnation over Israel’s conduct in Gaza, a looming arrest warrant from the ICC, and potential recognition of Palestinian statehood by a growing number of UN members, Netanyahu’s options are narrowing.

The strike on Iran, meticulously timed and ruthlessly executed, is perhaps less a military operation than a geopolitical diversion. It is a calculated bid to reassert Israel’s impunity—to remind the world that the Israeli state, shielded by its unique historical and geopolitical identity, can act unilaterally without consequence.

In this vision of “security,” sovereignty becomes absolute license, and accountability is a distant fantasy. Whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or now Iran, Israel has pursued a doctrine of continuous escalation, sustained by the idea that might creates right—and that impunity is an entitlement, not a privilege.

Despite formal diplomatic recognition by 164 UN member states, Israel’s legitimacy faces unprecedented scrutiny. Its ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and refusal to comply with binding international legal decisions have prompted legal scholars to describe its condition as an “ontological crisis of statehood.”

The ICJ’s ruling declaring the occupation illegal and calling for immediate withdrawal, combined with the ICC’s arrest warrants, has severely compromised Israel’s position within the framework of international law. In stark contrast, 146 states have formally recognized Palestine, and the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly backed its bid for full membership (143 in favor, 9 against).

The shift is not merely symbolic. It reflects a growing consensus that the international legal order cannot be sustained if one state is permitted to operate perpetually outside its constraints.

This confrontation is not merely an Israel-Iran duel; it is a tectonic rift shaking the entire Middle Eastern strategic landscape. The Begin Doctrine, which previously guided preemptive Israeli strikes on Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007), has now been escalated to a full-spectrum campaign aimed at crippling a regional power.

The fallout is already profound. Global oil prices have surged. Nuclear diplomacy has stalled. Regional powers like Oman have condemned the strike as a “reckless escalation,” while the UN Secretary-General has warned of the grave risks associated with attacks on nuclear facilities.

As the fog of war deepens, the question remains: is this the beginning of a wider conflagration or the climax of a failed doctrine of unchecked impunity?

What began as a military operation has now morphed into a litmus test for the future of international law and multilateralism. Will the global community permit one state to repeatedly flout international norms under the guise of self-defense and historical exceptionalism? Or will this moment mark a turning point—when law finally catches up to power?

In launching Operation Rising Lion, Israel has not only endangered regional stability but laid bare the fragility of a world order increasingly tested by unilateralism, impunity, and geopolitical cynicism. The burden now lies with the international community to determine whether such behavior will be met with silence or with the force of legal and moral accountability.