Trump’s No-Rules International Order Fuels Death, Destruction, and Nuclearization

At the 2026 meeting of the World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney remarked that the “rules-based international order” has ended. In its place is a system where “the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.” Sovereignty is no longer safeguarded by international law, but rather “will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.”

The world Carney describes is quite familiar to the nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America—the ones that never had the luxury of relying on international law. Where, for instance, were these rules during the decades of Israeli occupation of Palestine?

Still, while international law was always unevenly applied, the illegal war being waged by the US and Israel against Iran highlights the dangers of a world where superpowers can act without even those modest restraints.

A world where instead of just cause, the whims of the strong is enough cause for war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has “longed” for this war “for 40 years.” President Donald Trump remarked, “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first… I felt strongly about that.” Trump has even claimed that the war will end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.”

What other lessons are countries to draw from this than that the US will engage in imperial violence against any non-nuclear power?

No congressional approval; no clear—or even consistent—justification provided to the public; no forewarning to America’s allies. When might makes right, why bother with the details?

Instead of the façade of proportionality, wars are deliberate exercises of international bullying. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth boosts that America “is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history… with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives.” Trump openly jokes that military officials have told him it’s “a lot more fun” to sink Iranian ships than capture them.

Instead of any pretense of protecting civilians, the mighty strike with callous indifference. On the very first day of the war, the US struck a girl’s elementary school, killing more than 175 people—most of them small children. A US official reports that this was likely due to outdated intelligence. However, it is worth noting that the Trump administration effectively dissolved the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, an initiative aimed precisely at reducing civilian harms during US military operations.

To date, the Iranian Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian reports that at least 1,255 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the war. More than 12,000 people have been wounded, and 52 health centers and 29 clinical facilities have been either damaged or destroyed.

The cruelty is the point. Trump and Netanyahu want to make Iran into a failed state—an example of what happens to their enemies. As Trump puts it, “They really are a nation of terror and hate, and they’re paying a big price right now.” This is collective punishment with no plans or care for what comes next.

It is a war with no clear off-ramp. A peaceful resolution would be ideal, but why exactly would Iran entertain this option? Prior to these attacks, they were negotiating with the Trump administration. Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who was mediating talks between the US and Iran, said that Tehran had made major concessions regarding its nuclear program. This included a willingness to reduce uranium levels below what it had agreed to under the Obama administration.

In a world where the pretense of international law has been unraveled, how can nations negotiate as equals? What guarantees could the world offer Iran that it will not be attacked again without provocation? This is, after all, the second war Israel has launched against them in nine months.

How will the world hold the US and Israel—two nuclear powers—responsible for their war crimes? Is it even possible? And if not, what precedent does it set?

Trump and Netanyahu insist that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Yet perhaps the greatest irony of this war is that their senseless aggression is giving every country reason to develop nuclear arms.

In a speech on March 2, French President Emmanuel Macron remarked, “The next 50 years will be an era of nuclear weapons.” He further announced that France will bolster their own nuclear arsenal, including the development of a new nuclear-armed submarine. On March 3, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk remarked that his administration is preparing “Poland for the most autonomous actions possible” with regards to nuclear security.

These moves, while dangerous, are unsurprising. In addition to war with Iran, Trump has threatened to annex Greenland and Canada; threatened to take the Panama Canal; kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro; launched military strikes in Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq; as well as imposed an oil embargo that is pushing Cuba to total collapse.

What other lessons are countries to draw from this than that the US will engage in imperial violence against any non-nuclear power? It will threaten Cuba for dealing with “hostile countries” like China and Russia, while also inviting President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin to be part of Trump's Peace Board. The Trump administration will condemn human rights abuses in Iran, while also sharply scaling back its annual human rights report on North Korea.

This is the reality of Trump’s no-rules international order. If Iran had nuclear weapons, neither the US nor Israel would have dared attack them. Their sovereignty would be safe.

At Davos, Carney remarked that while the “great powers can afford for now to go it alone,” other nations must work together “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” The precedent Trump has set is clear: A seat at the table is only guaranteed to nuclear powers. That is how nations will “withstand pressure.”

Importantly, this dynamic does not end with the Trump administration. Even if a competent leader is elected in 2028, no country can rest assured that another Trump is not on the horizon. The threat of unmitigated American violence will drive further nuclearization. It will make nuclear war increasingly more likely. That will be Trump’s legacy—one of death, destruction, and nuclearization.

Future presidents will inherit the terrible burden of repairing America’s image on the global stage. For now, we must do everything we can to end this war before Trump’s madness goes truly nuclear.