Editor's note: Shao Xia is a commentator on international affairs for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Spring 2026 has brought an unseasonal chill to the Iranian people. In Tehran's historic Golestan Palace, shockwaves shattered millions of tiny mirror pieces on the floor, which may take years to restore. But what is far harder to repair is the international order smashed to pieces by missiles. 

Those who launched the attack so inhumanely did not even bother to make a decent excuse. They bypassed the UN Security Council (UNSC) and targeted the leader of a sovereign state in a so-called precision strike. This was no preemptive strike; it was a blatant trampling on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Attacking Iran is not a lawful use of force; it is turning a blind eye to international law. China has always maintained that the use of force is not the right way to settle international disputes. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter clearly stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

If a country bombs another just for disliking its leadership, the UN will be rendered meaningless. The attack and killing of Iran's supreme leader have gravely violated Iran's sovereignty and security, and trampled on the UN Charter and the basic norms of international relations.

What is even more ironic is that certain parties were still talking about negotiations right before the strike. They advocated peace with one hand and fired missiles with the other. This fully reveals their deep-rooted hegemonic mindset: abide by the rules only when they serve your interests, and resort to force when they stand in your way.

Moreover, these attacks were not collateral damage but a bloody lesson for the whole world. On the first day of the airstrikes, a girls' primary school in Minab, southern Iran, was hit by a missile while the children were in class. The school was destroyed, and the death toll later rose to more than 160. Most of the children were between seven and 12 years old. The attackers first claimed the incident was "staged by Iran," then later blamed it on "technical errors" and "outdated intelligence."

Under international law, the intentional attack on civilians and civilian facilities in armed conflicts constitutes a war crime. Reports confirm the school was hit twice in about 40 minutes, a tactic known as a "double tap" strike designed to target rescuers arriving at the scene. This is no accident; it is a premeditated crime.

This conflict did not showcase hegemonic strength but exposed the inherent predicament of hegemony. Some thought attacking Iran would be a walkover, yet it has turned into a protracted war of attrition.

After the outbreak of hostilities, Brent crude prices briefly neared $120 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is mired in tension, sending shockwaves through the global energy market. What hegemony has brought to the world is not stability, but an energy crunch, soaring inflation, and deeper geopolitical divisions.

Gulf countries, witnessing all this, have realized that buying expensive Western weapons and hosting foreign military bases do not bring security; they only make them targets of retaliation. This so-called security framework is falling apart. The envisioned "new Middle East" is quickly turning into a new fire pit.

In addition, the attack is a mirror that lays bare Western double standards. When the Ukraine crisis broke out, some Western voices were loud and clear: They imposed sanctions, sent military aid and humanitarian supplies, and adopted one condemnatory resolution after another at the UN General Assembly. But when Tomahawk missiles killed innocent civilians in Iran, those same voices fell completely silent.

This hypocrisy was on full display just months ago, when America forcibly abducted the Venezuelan president to New York. The head of state was seized, shackled, and put on trial in another country's court. The absolute immunity of heads of state and the principle of par in parem non habet jurisdictionem (the principle that equals have no jurisdiction over each other) – cornerstones of international law – were simply thrown aside like scrap paper.

This double standard erodes global trust in international law. When rules can be twisted and bent to suit political whims, the entire international legal system teeters on the brink of collapse. When the West flouts international rules at will, it only squanders its own credibility.

China's position has been clear and firm all along. At emergency sessions of the UNSC and through various diplomatic channels, China has been committed to two things: first, ending the conflict; second, upholding the rule of law.

Military might does not equal moral right, and the world must not slip back to the law of the jungle. China stands with all peace-loving countries in opposing this kind of behavior. When power replaces justice, it may be Iran today, but it could be any sovereign state tomorrow. Justice may come late, but it will not be absent.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)