The war against Iran has shown the insignificance of multilateralism and international organizations when it comes to solving global conflicts.
We may conclude, if we use war to gauge the strength of the post-World War II rules-based order that was established in the wake of World War II. That the patient is very weak.
United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) are the two organizations that best represent the global normative order of post-World War II.
This order is based on such principles as non-aggression and the respect for the territorial integrity and independence of sovereign states.
The US-Israeli war campaign has already claimed many victims, including the principles and international organizations that they represented. What happened and how could this patient be revived?
United Nations: a story of great power struggles and double standards
The war in Iran, which began with the UN system of collective safety established after 1945 has shown that it is severely disabled when major powers decide to act alone. UN Security Council, designated to be the protector of peace and security in the world, has been paralysed due to the veto power of permanent members who have used it repeatedly as a shield for their actions or those of allies.
The Security Council failed at first to respond in a meaningful way, or to authorise measures that would deescalate the situation when the US and Israel attacked Iran late in February 2026. The conflict developed outside of the international legal framework, and unilateral military action became the norm, rather than the exception.
On March 11, the Security Council adopted a narrow resolution that condemned Iran’s aggression against Gulf States. With 13 votes for and two abstentions, the resolution labelled Iran’s attacks as “egregious” and called on it to stop its aggression in the region.
The resolution, while a positive sign that Iran is alive, and the UN is willing to continue protecting the basic norms that it was founded on, is also revealing of its one-sidedness.
It does not mention the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which sparked the current conflict. Nor does it discuss the wider context, including the legality or death of Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Silence of the UN Security Council when it comes to US and Israeli violations of prescriptive international law is yet another example of using double standards. It further undermines UN Security Council credibility as a guardian for international peace and safety.
While the UN is in a geopolitical emergency, the UN could be revived by a new procedure, Uniting for Peace.
In the event of a deadlock in the Security Council, this mechanism gives the UN General Assembly the power to intervene.
This mechanism hasn’t been utilized yet because of a lack of political will.
The EU is a geopolitical actor that has’muscle,’ but does not want to use it
The European Union’s complete insignificance as a peacemaker and mediator is another (yet not surprising) feature of the Iranian Conflict.
Multilateralism and non-violent dispute resolution were the founding principles of the EU.
The EU views itself as an normative power that seeks to project values around the world through soft power, but is reluctant to use coercion.
Our world is unfortunately one in which the strongest states have chosen violence as the best tool to achieve foreign policy goals – whether it is by ousting unfriendly governments from power, or usurping other territories by means of armed aggression.
Europe appears helpless in this world of dog-eats-dog. In the lead-up to war with Iran, the EU did not consult nor was it involved in any hostilities. It is instead watching, making futile appeals for restraint, and self-sabotaging in its internal disputes. It is regrettable that Europe has not taken the lead in negotiations of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Why is the EU watching the world’s most significant geopolitical events from the sidelines?
One, it has yet again failed to express itself with one voice. Some member states supported US-Israeli action, while others called for restraint.
Spain has, for example, risked an open confrontation with Trump over the use its bases to support the war effort.
Other key players such as Germany and France also expressed some sympathy towards the air strikes.
It is very easy to criticize the EU’s lack of unity in important geopolitical issues, but this is a deliberate design element of this hybrid institution, which incorporates both intergovernmental and supranational elements into its institutional structure.
This design also undermines the EU’s agency on important geopolitical issues. The EU’s dependence on the US and lack of an army in Europe are also factors that condemn it to failure when faced with geopolitical crisis.
The biggest barrier to EU geopolitical agency is not institutional or material.
It’s psychological. It is psychological.
The EU, instead of using its diplomatic and economic weight to counter unilateral US action, has frequently resorted to conciliatory, reactive gestures in the hope that harmony between North America and Europe will be restored through goodwill. The EU’s approach reflects an important miscalculation, namely the mistaken belief that Washington, whether under Trump or another leader, would eventually reward European loyalty.
This can change. It is possible to change mindsets, re-create identities, and build agency.
Although the patient appears weak, there is still hope
Multilateralism hasn’t died. Multilateral organisations like the UN or the EU not only have norms and systems in place that allow them to be a key player in geopolitical crisis, but they have also put enormous resources in their hands that will enable them to do so.
There are many effective ways to improve the patient’s heart rate.
We must now muster up the political will in order to put them into practice.
Weekly e-mail featuring the expertise of scholars and researchers. The newsletter introduces the diverse research that is being done on the European continent, and also considers the most important issues for European countries. Subscribe to the newsletter.
