Key points
- Senior United States officials have confirmed extensive air strikes on Iranian targets in 2025, including facilities linked to Tehran’s nuclear and missile programmes, following years of stop‑start negotiations over Iran’s nuclear activities.
- Washington and Tehran remain formally engaged in indirect talks over a possible nuclear agreement, even as Iranian officials condemn the bombing as a violation of sovereignty and a blow to diplomacy.
- Cuba is experiencing severe fuel shortages, prolonged blackouts and food scarcity, which Havana and many international observers attribute largely to the long‑running US embargo and more recent tightening of sanctions.
- Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has prompted a landmark case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with South Africa and other states alleging genocide and calling for urgent measures to protect Palestinians.
- Israeli officials reject accusations of genocide, while rights groups have documented large‑scale civilian deaths, displacement and what they describe as the use of starvation as a method of warfare.
- Legal scholars warn that overlapping crises involving Iran, Cuba and the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict are testing the resilience of international law, multilateral diplomacy and the authority of institutions such as the United Nations and the ICJ.
- Activists, commentators and some governments argue that US military power, sanctions policy and support for Israel are contributing to instability and humanitarian suffering, while Washington and its allies insist their actions are aimed at security, non‑proliferation and counter‑terrorism objectives.
US actions in Iran, Cuba and Gaza under intensifying global scrutiny
The United States’ recent bombing campaign against Iran, the tightening of sanctions on Cuba and continued military support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza are fuelling a broad international debate over the use of force, economic coercion and compliance with international law. While Washington and its allies frame these policies as necessary to confront security threats and uphold non‑proliferation norms, critics across governments, civil society and academia warn they are deepening humanitarian crises and eroding faith in multilateral institutions.
Strikes on Iran amid fragile talks
According to a United Nations Security Council briefing in June 2025, the United States carried out extensive air strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, arguing that diplomacy had been exhausted and that Tehran was using negotiations “as camouflage” while advancing uranium enrichment and missile capabilities. US officials said the action was taken in defence of international security and non‑proliferation, while Iran denounced the bombing as aggression by what it called an “illegitimate regime”.
Subsequent reporting indicates that, despite the strikes, both sides have continued to engage — directly and indirectly — in efforts to revive some form of nuclear agreement. Al Jazeera reported that the White House has repeatedly asserted that the 2025 strikes “obliterated” key elements of Iran’s nuclear programme, even as a senior aide warned Tehran could be “one week away” from having sufficient material for a nuclear weapon if restrictions lapse. Tehran insists its nuclear work is solely for civilian purposes and has signalled willingness to accept strict International Atomic Energy Agency oversight in exchange for sanctions relief.
Iran International reported that US President Donald Trump recently announced a “major US combat operation” in Iran, urging members of Iran’s security forces to lay down their arms and telling civilians to remain sheltered during expected strikes. The outlet said Iranian state media accused Washington of jeopardising ongoing talks and placing responsibility for any collapse of negotiations on the United States, a claim that could not be independently verified.
Escalating sanctions and hardship in Cuba
Cuba’s economic crisis has sharply worsened in recent months, with fuel shortages triggering long blackouts, reduced public transport and mounting difficulties in food storage and distribution. An Al Jazeera report described how the decades‑long US embargo, combined with more recent measures restricting Cuba’s access to oil and international finance, has “crippled life” for many of the island’s 11 million residents.
According to the same reporting, Havana has imposed emergency measures, including rationing fuel to essential services and warning that air travel could be severely curtailed because there is not enough aviation fuel. Officials in Cuba argue that Washington’s policy amounts to collective punishment and violates basic social and economic rights, a position echoed by activists who characterise the sanctions as deliberately pushing the population to the “brink”.
The US government maintains that its sanctions are targeted at the Cuban leadership and are intended to promote democratic reforms and human rights, a justification consistently rejected by Havana. A commentary published by a UK‑based solidarity group and cited by The Corbyn Project alleges that recent measures are “an order to starve the Cuban people”, language that reflects the depth of activist criticism but has not been accepted by US authorities. This information could not be independently verified.
Gaza war, genocide allegations and the ICJ
Israel’s ongoing military campaign in the Gaza Strip, launched after the Hamas‑led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, remains at the centre of one of the most consequential international legal disputes in decades. South Africa has brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention through widespread killing of Palestinians, the imposition of life‑threatening conditions and statements by Israeli officials that Pretoria argues reveal genocidal intent.
Human Rights Watch has documented what it describes as serious abuses by both Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups, noting in a January 2024 briefing that Hamas and allied factions killed hundreds of civilians and took more than 200 hostages on 7 October, acts it says constitute war crimes. The organisation further states that Israeli authorities responded by cutting electricity, fuel, food and water to Gaza’s population and sharply restricting life‑saving humanitarian aid, actions it characterises as collective punishment and the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which are also war crimes under international law.
Israel rejects allegations of genocide and insists that its operations are aimed at dismantling Hamas and securing the release of hostages, while arguing that it takes steps to minimise civilian harm. The ICJ has set out a multi‑year timetable for written submissions and oral hearings, with legal experts quoted in The Conversation suggesting that a final ruling on whether Israel has committed genocide may not come before 2028. In the meantime, the Court has issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts and to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance, while also calling on Hamas and other armed groups to release hostages.
Brazil and other states have joined or backed South Africa’s case, reflecting a broader geopolitical shift as governments in the Global South seek to use international courts to challenge the conduct of powerful states and their allies. Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups, including B’Tselem, have intensified their own documentation efforts, with some concluding that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, a legal characterisation that remains contested among scholars and governments.
Debates over US support for Israel
The United States remains Israel’s most important military and diplomatic backer, providing arms, intelligence and political support at the United Nations while occasionally signalling concern about the scale of civilian casualties. Critics argue that this backing, combined with the use of the US veto power at the UN Security Council, has shielded Israel from stronger censure and impeded efforts to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Rights groups and some member states contend that Washington’s continued arms transfers risk making it complicit in potential violations of international humanitarian law if weapons are used in attacks that fail to distinguish adequately between combatants and civilians. US officials say they require assurances about how American‑supplied weapons are used and maintain that Israel has a right to defend itself, while emphasising the importance of protecting civilians and increasing humanitarian access.
These tensions have spilled into domestic politics in several countries, where protests and parliamentary debates have focused on whether governments should suspend arms exports to Israel or recognise Palestine as a state. Analysts say the ICJ proceedings, together with parallel investigations by the International Criminal Court, could shape future policy choices on defence cooperation and export controls.
Greenland and the politics of territory
While there has been no recent move to invade Greenland, earlier statements by former President Trump during his previous term about the possibility of purchasing the vast Arctic territory from Denmark continue to resonate in debates over sovereignty and resource competition. Danish and Greenlandic authorities firmly rejected the idea at the time, underscoring that Greenland’s status is not for sale and that any change would rest with its people.
The episode is frequently cited by commentators as emblematic of a more transactional approach to foreign policy, in which strategic interests in natural resources and military positioning play an outsize role. There is currently no indication of an imminent military confrontation over Greenland, and no credible reports of active invasion plans.
Broader implications for international order
Taken together, the US bombing of Iranian sites, the tightening of sanctions on Cuba and sustained support for Israel’s war in Gaza have intensified debates over the consistency of international law and the perceived double standards of major powers. Diplomats and legal experts warn that when powerful states rely on force and unilateral measures while invoking legal norms, it can undermine the authority of institutions designed to prevent conflict and protect civilians.
Supporters of US policy argue that Iran’s nuclear activities, Cuba’s political system and armed groups such as Hamas present distinct challenges that require firm responses, including military action and sanctions, to deter aggression and uphold non‑proliferation commitments. Critics counter that such approaches have failed to deliver lasting security, pointing instead to prolonged conflicts, economic crises and cycles of retaliation.
The ICJ case on Gaza, ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme and the humanitarian situation in Cuba will all serve as key tests of whether diplomacy and legal mechanisms can still provide credible pathways out of entrenched crises. Observers note that the outcomes could influence not only the parties directly involved, but also future conflicts where sanctions, air strikes and international courts intersect.
What happens next
The timeline set by the ICJ means that substantive hearings in the genocide case against Israel are expected to continue for several years, with states and civil society watching closely for interim orders and eventual findings. Parallel diplomatic efforts, including ceasefire talks and discussions on Gaza’s reconstruction and governance, are likely to shape the context in which the Court’s decisions are received.
In Iran, further US military action and the future of nuclear negotiations remain uncertain, with regional security, energy markets and non‑proliferation norms all at stake. In Cuba, the immediate priorities for authorities and international partners centre on alleviating shortages, stabilising electricity supply and navigating the impact of sanctions, while debates continue in Washington and other capitals over the efficacy and ethics of the embargo.
Across these theatres, governments, international organisations and advocacy groups are likely to press for clearer accountability mechanisms and more consistent application of international law, as they seek to prevent further escalation and limit harm to civilians.
