The latest US-Israeli strike on Iran, carried out while Washington and Tehran remain engaged in nuclear negotiations, exposes a troubling contradiction at the heart of US policy: diplomacy is invoked publicly, but force is exercised decisively.

The strike suggests that, for the United States, the talks function less as a genuine pathway to a peaceful resolution of disputes than as a tactical pause before the resumption of military attacks.

Even more alarming was the US administration's explicit call for Iranians to overthrow their government. Urging the overthrow of another government while conducting military strikes is not deterrence; it is an undisguised assault on sovereignty and a direct violation of the non-interference principle enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter.

The pattern is by now familiar. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, military intervention has been justified in the name of stability and security, only to unleash prolonged turmoil. Escalation squeezes diplomatic space, entrenches hostility and multiplies risks far beyond initial calculations.

The UN Charter's core tenets -- respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the peaceful settlement of disputes -- were designed precisely to prevent such spirals. Disregarding them in favor of military adventurism weakens the very norms that guard against wider conflict.

Resorting to force at the very moment diplomacy shows promise sends a dangerous message: that might, not law, has the final say. Such a message erodes the foundations of the international system and pushes an already volatile region closer to the brink.

At this critical juncture, the international community must speak with clarity and unity to defend the authority of international law, and insist that disputes be resolved at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield.