Theresa Reinold (EDHEC): “The current military strikes further erode the already fragile norms codified after World War II governing non-aggression, sovereign equality, and non-intervention”
In this interview, Theresa Reinold, Assistant Professor at EDHEC, explains what is at stake in the current military confrontation in Iran.
An entire region is going up in flames. A head of state is being killed in a decapitation strike and the specter of regime change - for a long time discredited in geopolitics - is being resuscitated. In short, the current US-Israeli strikes against Iran have not only upset the balance of power within Iran and given Iranians hope for an end to the brutal repression of the people’s will, they have also put immense strain on an already fragile global order and have triggered fears of a larger conflagration. Energy markets are nervous, the rhetoric of the involved parties has become increasingly shrill, and the risk of miscalculation is real.
What are we to make of this explosive situation? As the war against Iran is going into first week, Dr Theresa Reinold, Assistant Professor at EDHEC, sat down with EDHEC Vox to explain what is at stake in this military confrontation. Brace yourself as we explore four fundamental questions that dive deep into the heart of this unfolding crisis.
Why did this war start - and why now?
This is a question that many people have been asking themselves. Tensions between Iran on the one hand, and Israel and the US on the other hand, have been simmering for decades (1).
Among the drivers of the conflict are Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and its regional influence through allied non-state actors such as Hezbollah, its missile program, and, most importantly, its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (2). While the military option has been on the table for a long time (and was briefly activated by the US and Israel last summer), many people have been wondering why the US and Israel have decided to go for regime change now - in the midst of ongoing negotiations with Iran (3).
According to senior US officials, Trump had gotten exasperated by what he perceived as fruitless haggling with Tehran and seemed to have come to the conclusion that negotiations would not suffice to convince Iran to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program. However, as with so many things Trump does (or does not do), one can only speculate on what ultimately drove him to take this drastic decision and launch a fully-fledged regime change campaign against another sovereign state.
Militarily speaking, isn’t this David against Goliath?
Militarily, the war is defined by asymmetry and escalation risks. While the current state of Iran’s nuclear program remains unclear (it was partially destroyed during the 12-Day War in 2025 (4)), Iran has invested heavily in missile capabilities, drones, cyber tools, and proxy networks across the region, allowing it to project power indirectly. The US and Israel, by contrast, rely on superior airpower and a sophisticated intelligence network – so yes, there is a clear asymmetry involved, but that doesn’t mean that Iran doesn’t have a huge capacity to inflict harm.
The US and Israel have a number of military objectives in this conflict (5): A central goal of the military campaign is to prevent Iran from aquiring a nuclear weapon, which would be considered an existential threat to US and Israeli national interests. Other military objectives include neutralizing Iran's missile capabilities, that is, destroying its stockpiles and its ability to produce new missiles. Trump has equally said he wants to “annihilate” Iran’s navy and to prevent Tehran from sponsoring non-state armed groups across the Middle East.
And then - and this sometimes gets forgotten in all of this - there is also the stated goal of freeing the Iranian people from a brutal dictatorship that has killed tens of thousands of Iranians in the past weeks and months.
What does the war mean for world order?
It’s bad news, no ambivalence here. The war constitutes a flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (6) – the core norm underpinning today’s global order – and cannot possibly be justified as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter (7). We also do not have a UN Security Council mandate authorizing the strikes.
While many other wars have raised tricky questions from an international legal perspective and are often discussed controversially in the context of the existing jus ad bellum, there’s really no ambivalence here when it comes to assessing the legality of US-Israeli strikes against Iran: The war constitutes a blatant violation of peremptory international law (8).
This is certainly not the first time that a powerful nation violates core precepts of international law. Yet what we are seeing here is the latest episode in a series of egregious violations of international law committed by the Trump administration, which threatened an invasion of Greenland, kidnapped Venezuela’s president, and bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025 (9).
The current military strikes further erode the already fragile norms governing non-aggression, sovereign equality, and non-intervention. These norms were codified after World War II in order to prevent a third world war. When violating them becomes “the new normal”, then all bets are off (10).
What are the economic implications of the war?
The economic consequences are potentially significant. We are already seeing a major spike in oil and gas prices (11), which demonstrates that the conflict actually goes far beyond direct battlefield engagements and cannot be regarded in isolation from broader economic and trade dynamics.
Maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz are critical here, given their significance for global trade and supply chains (12). Other risks to businesses include a potential new round of sanctions that may be imposed by the warring parties, thus creating a more complex regulatory environment for firms.
In the longer term, the war may redirect trade, investment, and technology flows in that business decisions in these areas may be increasingly shaped by strategic and security considerations rather than pure market logic.
References
(1) Trump’s current war on Iran picks up where a longstanding enmity left off (March 2026) The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/01/trump-us-iran-war-history
(2) Iran, country spotlight on the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit, nonpartisan global security organization focused on reducing nuclear, biological, and emerging technology threats imperiling humanity - https://www.nti.org/countries/iran/
(3) Iran : l’attaque israélo-américaine enterre les négociations sur le dossier nucléaire alors que des progrès venaient d’être réalisés (March 2026) Le Monde - https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2026/03/01/iran-l-attaque-israelo-americaine-enterre-les-negociations-sur-le-dossier-nucleaire-alors-que-des-progres-venaient-d-etre-realises_6668757_3210.html
(4) Comprehensive Updated Assessment of Iranian Nuclear Sites Five Months After the 12-Day War (Nov. 2025) Institute for Science and International Security - https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/comprehensive-updated-assessment-of-iranian-nuclear-sites-five-months-after-the-12-day-war
(5) Targeting Iran: US Objectives and Priorities (Feb. 2026) Hudson Institute - https://www.hudson.org/missile-defense/targeting-iran-us-objectives-priorities-joel-rayburn
(6) The UN Charter, Article 2(4) - https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2/english/rep_supp7_vol1_art2_4.pdf
(7) The UN Charter, Article 51 - https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51/english/rep_supp3_vol2_art51.pdf
(8) Neither preemptive nor legal, US‑Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international law (March 2026) The Conversation - https://theconversation.com/neither-preemptive-nor-legal-us-israeli-strikes-on-iran-have-blown-up-international-law-277173
(9) From Greenland to Iran: Trump’s threats stretch far and wide since his Venezuela strike (January 2026) CNN - https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/05/world/greenland-cuba-iran-trump-warning-intl
(10) Failure of US‑Iran talks was all too predictable — but turning to military strikes creates dangerous unknowns (March 2026) The Conversation - https://theconversation.com/failure-of-us-iran-talks-was-all-too-predictable-but-turning-to-military-strikes-creates-dangerous-unknowns-277209
(11) Iran War: Impact on the Global Economy and Financial Markets (March 2026) Investing.com - https://www.investing.com/analysis/iran-war-impact-on-the-global-economy-and-financial-markets-200675969
(12) Strait of Hormuz: if the Iran conflict shuts world’s most important oil chokepoint, global economic chaos could follow (March 2026) The Conversation - https://theconversation.com/strait-of-hormuz-if-the-iran-conflict-shuts-worlds-most-important-oil-chokepoint-global-economic-chaos-could-follow-277199
