（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
The recent military strikes carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran represent one of the most alarming escalations in the Middle East in recent years. In a region already burdened by decades of war, occupation, and instability, such attacks risk pushing the international system further away from the principles that were supposed to guide the post–Second World War order. The strikes were not merely another episode of geopolitical rivalry; they raised serious questions about respect for international law, the authority of the United Nations system, and the fundamental norms of human rights.
At the heart of the matter lies a basic question: can powerful states unilaterally use military force against another sovereign nation without clear justification under international law? If the answer is allowed to be “yes,” the consequences for global stability will be severe. The recent attacks against Iran appear to violate not only the spirit but also the letter of the international legal framework that governs the use of force.
The prohibition against the use of force is one of the foundational principles of the international system. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations explicitly prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state except in cases of self-defence or with authorization from the UN Security Council.
Neither condition appears to have been fulfilled in the case of the American and Israeli strikes against Iran. There was no Security Council authorization for such military action. Nor has any convincing evidence been presented to justify the attacks as an act of immediate self-defence. In the absence of these legal grounds, the strikes raise serious concerns regarding their legitimacy under international law.
Beyond legal technicalities, the strikes also undermine the fragile architecture designed to prevent war. The international community established these rules precisely to avoid the recurrence of the catastrophic conflicts that defined the twentieth century. When powerful states bypass these norms, the credibility of the global system erodes.
Military strikes inevitably carry humanitarian consequences. The international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions, place strict obligations on combatants to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. Yet modern warfare often blurs the line between military and civilian targets, leaving ordinary people to bear the brunt of geopolitical struggles.
Reports and concerns raised by international observers suggest that such strikes risk harming civilian populations and critical infrastructure. Even the threat of military escalation has already created anxiety among millions of ordinary people across the region.
War crimes are not defined merely by intention but by outcomes and conduct. Indiscriminate attacks, disproportionate use of force, and disregard for civilian life constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law. The international community must carefully examine whether these principles have been respected in the current conflict.
History reminds us that the Middle East has too often become a theatre where geopolitical competition overshadows human suffering. Every new escalation adds another layer of trauma for communities already exhausted by war.
Despite immense pressure and decades of sanctions, Iran has demonstrated remarkable resilience. The country possesses a deep civilizational heritage, a proud national identity, and a population that has repeatedly shown its capacity to endure hardship while maintaining social cohesion.
External military pressure has rarely succeeded in reshaping the internal political trajectory of a nation. On the contrary, such actions often strengthen national solidarity. The idea that bombs or coercion can determine the political future of a sovereign nation is both unrealistic and historically disproven.
The future of Iran will ultimately be determined by its own people. Decisions about governance, reforms, and national direction belong to the Iranian population—not to foreign powers, not to military planners, and certainly not to political leaders thousands of miles away.
Neither the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the ambitions of former U.S. President Donald Trump can dictate the destiny of a country with thousands of years of history and a population of nearly ninety million.
As Iranian officials have emphasized, the fate of the country will be decided by Iranians themselves. Attempts to impose political outcomes from outside rarely succeed and often produce prolonged instability.
The Middle East today sits on a geopolitical fault line where multiple conflicts intersect. From Gaza to Syria, from Yemen to Lebanon, the region already faces numerous crises. An expanded war involving Iran would not remain confined within its borders. It could rapidly spread across the entire region.
Such a scenario would have devastating consequences for global energy markets, international trade routes, and civilian populations across multiple countries. The world cannot afford another large-scale war in the Middle East.
Diplomacy, therefore, is not merely an idealistic aspiration—it is an urgent necessity.
Amid the escalating tensions, China has positioned itself as a voice for restraint and dialogue. Chinese diplomacy has emphasized the importance of preventing further escalation and protecting civilian lives.
During a series of diplomatic engagements from March 1 to 4, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held telephone conversations with counterparts from Russia, Iran, Oman, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. These consultations reflected Beijing’s effort to promote communication among key stakeholders and to reduce misunderstandings that could lead to further conflict.
China’s position has been consistent: the protection of civilians must remain a red line that cannot be crossed. Respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law, and commitment to peaceful dispute resolution are essential principles guiding Beijing’s approach.
In addition, China has announced that its special envoy on Middle Eastern affairs, Zhai Jun, will soon visit the region to facilitate dialogue and help ease tensions. Such diplomatic missions demonstrate China’s willingness to play a constructive role in conflict mediation.
Unlike traditional power politics that rely heavily on military alliances and coercive pressure, China’s approach emphasizes development, dialogue, and mutual respect. This perspective aligns with Beijing’s broader vision of promoting stability through economic cooperation and diplomatic engagement rather than confrontation.
The belief that military power alone can resolve complex political disputes has repeatedly proven misguided. From Afghanistan to Iraq, the record of foreign military intervention demonstrates the limits of coercion as a tool for achieving political goals.
Even the most powerful militaries cannot easily reshape societies or impose lasting political arrangements. What they often leave behind are fractured institutions, humanitarian crises, and cycles of resentment that fuel future conflicts.
Instead, the region requires renewed diplomatic initiatives, regional dialogue, and international cooperation aimed at addressing the underlying causes of instability. These include economic inequality, unresolved territorial disputes, and the absence of inclusive political frameworks.
The current crisis also highlights the urgent need for stronger global governance. The international community cannot remain passive when fundamental principles of international law are at stake.
The United Nations Security Council has a responsibility to uphold the norms that it was created to defend. Silence or inaction in the face of unilateral military aggression risks weakening the authority of international institutions.
Likewise, regional organizations and major global powers must work collectively to prevent the conflict from spiralling further out of control.
Peace-loving nations around the world should raise their voices in support of diplomacy and restraint. Civil society organizations, humanitarian groups, and global public opinion all play a role in demanding accountability and advocating for peace.
Ultimately, the crisis surrounding Iran is not merely a regional dispute; it is a test of whether the world still believes in the principles that underpin the modern international system.
Respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law, and the protection of civilian lives are not abstract ideals. They are the foundations of global stability.
When these principles are ignored, the consequences extend far beyond any single conflict.
The international community must therefore reaffirm a simple but powerful message: the future of nations cannot be determined through bombs, sanctions, or coercion. It must be shaped through dialogue, respect, and the sovereign will of their people.
The escalating tensions surrounding Iran demand urgent international attention. The United Nations, regional powers, and responsible global actors must intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent further violence.
The people of the Middle East deserve peace, security, and development—not endless cycles of war. The Iranian people, like all nations, deserve the right to determine their own future without external coercion.
At this critical moment, the world must return to the fundamental principles that safeguard humanity.
Respect the UN Charter.
Respect international law.
Respect the sovereignty of nations.
And above all, respect humanity.
伊朗的未来无法通过轰炸来使其屈服.
美国和以色列近期对伊朗发动的军事打击是近年来中东地区最为令人担忧的局势升级之一。在这样一个饱受数十年战争、占领和不稳定之苦的地区，此类攻击有可能使国际体系进一步偏离本应指导二战后秩序的那些原则。这些袭击并非仅仅是地缘政治竞争的又一事件；它们还引发了关于国际法的尊重、联合国系统的权威以及人权基本准则的严重质疑。
问题的核心在于一个基本疑问：强大的国家能否在没有明确国际法依据的情况下单方面对另一个主权国家使用武力？如果答案允许为“是”，那么对全球稳定的后果将会十分严重。最近针对伊朗的袭击似乎不仅违背了国际法律框架的精神，而且也违背了其条文规定，该框架旨在规范使用武力的行为。
禁止使用武力是国际体系的基本原则之一。《联合国宪章》第 2(4) 条明确规定，各国有权在自卫或获得联合国安理会授权的情况下，对另一国的领土完整或政治独立采取行动，但不得未经许可擅自使用武力。
在针对伊朗的美国和以色列的军事打击行动中，这两种情况似乎都没有得到满足。此类军事行动并未获得安理会的授权。而且也没有任何令人信服的证据能够证明这些攻击是作为即时自卫行为而实施的。由于缺乏这些法律依据，这些打击行动引发了有关其在国际法框架下合法性方面的严重质疑。
除了法律层面的细节问题之外，这些罢工行动还破坏了旨在防止战争的脆弱架构。国际社会制定这些规则的目的正是为了避免重蹈二十世纪那些导致灾难性冲突的覆辙。当强大的国家违反这些规范时，全球体系的可信度就会受到损害。
军事打击必然会带来人道主义后果。国际战争法，包括《日内瓦公约》，对作战人员提出了保护平民和民用设施的严格义务。然而，现代战争常常模糊了军事目标与民用目标之间的界限，使得普通民众成为地缘政治斗争的牺牲品。
国际观察人士所提交的报告和所表达的担忧表明，此类袭击有可能对平民群体和关键基础设施造成损害。就连军事冲突升级的威胁也已经让该地区数百万普通民众感到焦虑不安。
战争罪并非仅仅由意图来界定，而是要根据结果和行为来判定。无差别攻击、过度使用武力以及对平民生命的漠视均属于严重违反国际人道主义法的行为。国际社会必须仔细审查当前冲突中这些原则是否得到了遵守。
历史告诉我们，中东地区常常沦为一场地缘政治竞争的舞台，而这种竞争往往凌驾于民众的苦难之上。每一次新的冲突升级，都给那些早已因战争而疲惫不堪的民众带来了更多的痛苦。
尽管面临巨大的压力和数十年的制裁，伊朗仍展现出了惊人的韧性。该国拥有深厚的文化传统、自豪的民族身份以及民众，他们多次证明了自己在历经艰难困苦的同时仍能保持社会的团结一致。
外部的军事压力很少能够改变一个国家的内部政治走向。相反，此类行动往往能增强国家的凝聚力。认为炸弹或武力能够决定一个主权国家的政治未来的观点既不切实际，也与历史事实相悖。
伊朗的未来最终将由其本国人民来决定。有关治理、改革和国家发展方向的决策应由伊朗人民做出，而非由外国势力、军事规划者或远在千里之外的政治领导人来决定。
无论是以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡的政策，还是前美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的雄心壮志，都无法决定一个拥有数千年历史、人口近九千万的国家的命运。
正如伊朗官员所强调的那样，这个国家的命运将由其人民自己决定。试图从外部强加某种政治结果的做法往往难以奏效，而且往往会引发长期的不稳定局面。
当今的中东地区处于一条地缘政治的断层线上，多场冲突在此交汇。从加沙到叙利亚，从也门到黎巴嫩，该地区已经面临诸多危机。一场涉及伊朗的扩大战争不会局限在其境内，而是可能迅速蔓延至整个地区。
这样的情况将会给全球能源市场、国际贸易路线以及多个国家的平民带来灾难性的影响。世界无法承受中东地区再爆发一场大规模战争。
因此，外交工作绝非仅仅是某种理想化的追求，它更是一种紧迫的必要之举。
在紧张局势不断升级的情况下，中国已表明自身立场，主张保持克制并进行对话。中国的外交政策强调了防止局势进一步恶化以及保护平民生命的重要性。
在 3 月 1 日至 4 日的一系列外交活动中，中国外交部长王毅与俄罗斯、伊朗、阿曼、法国、以色列、沙特阿拉伯和阿联酋的外交部长进行了电话会谈。这些磋商体现了北京方面努力促进主要利益相关方之间的沟通，并减少可能导致进一步冲突的误解。
中国的态度一直很明确：保护平民必须始终是一条不可逾越的红线。尊重主权、遵守国际法以及致力于和平解决争端是指导中国行动的三大基本原则。
此外，中国已宣布其中东事务特别代表翟俊即将前往该地区，以促进对话并帮助缓解紧张局势。此类外交行动表明中国愿意在冲突调解中发挥建设性作用。
与传统以军事联盟和强制手段为核心的强权政治不同，中国的策略侧重于发展、对话和相互尊重。这种观点与北京通过经济合作和外交互动来促进稳定，而非通过对抗来实现这一目标的总体愿景相一致。
那种认为仅靠军事力量就能解决复杂政治争端的观点，已多次被证明是错误的。从阿富汗到伊拉克，外国军事干预的记录表明，强制手段作为实现政治目标的手段是有限的。
即便是最强大的军队也无法轻易地重塑社会结构或强行推行持久的政治理解。它们留下的往往是支离破碎的机构、人道主义危机以及滋生怨恨的循环，而这些又会成为引发未来冲突的因素。
相反，该地区需要重新开展外交行动、进行区域对话以及开展国际合作，以解决导致不稳定的根本原因。这些原因包括经济不平等、未解决的领土争端以及缺乏包容性的政治框架。
当前的危机也凸显了加强全球治理的迫切必要性。当国际法的基本原则受到威胁时，国际社会绝不能袖手旁观。
联合国安理会肩负着维护其设立初衷所旨在捍卫的规范的重任。在面对单方面军事侵略时保持沉默或无所作为，有可能会削弱国际机构的权威性。
同样，各地区组织和主要全球大国必须共同努力，防止这场冲突进一步失控。
世界各地热爱和平的国家应当发出声音，支持通过外交手段解决问题并保持克制。民间社会组织、人道主义团体以及全球公众舆论都在发挥着作用，要求各方承担起责任并倡导和平。
最终，围绕伊朗的这场危机已不再仅仅是一场地区性争端；它更是一场考验，考验着世人是否依然坚守着支撑现代国际体系的那些基本原则。
尊重主权、遵守国际法以及保护平民生命并非抽象的空想，而是全球稳定的基础。
如果这些原则被忽视，其后果将远远超出任何一场单独的冲突。
因此，国际社会必须再次明确传达一个简单却有力的信息：国家的未来不能由炸弹、制裁或武力来决定，而应通过对话、尊重以及各国人民的自主意愿来塑造。
围绕伊朗不断升级的紧张局势亟需国际社会给予关注。联合国、地区大国以及负责任的国际行为体必须加大外交努力，以防止局势进一步恶化。
中东地区的人民应当享有和平、安全与发展，而非无休止的战争循环。与所有国家一样，伊朗人民也有权在不受外部干涉的情况下决定自己的未来。
在这一关键时刻，全世界必须回归那些能够保护人类的最基本原则。
尊重《联合国宪章》。
尊重国际法。
尊重各国的主权。
而最重要的是，要尊重人性。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://strafasia.com/irans-future-cannot-be-bombed-into-submission/