<![CDATA[This article challenges the conventional discourse on military self-defense by interrogating the unexamined consequences of the Iran-Israel conflict: the collateral erosion of sovereignty in neighboring Muslim states. Through a normative-juridical analysis of International Law and Siyāsah Syar'iyyah, we reveal a critical disjuncture. While International Law theoretically protects third-party states under the principle of non-intervention, its application is rendered moot by the strategic interests of major powers. Conversely, Siyāsah Syar'iyyah, through the classical doctrines of fiqh al-Siyar and tamyīz (distinction), provides a granular ethical framework that International Law lacks. The study's primary contribution is the operationalization of ḥimāyat al-bayḍah as a legal counterweight to the UN Security Council's geopolitical paralysis. We argue that cross-border military maneuvers sacrificing neighboring states contravene al-wafa' bi al-'uqud (respect for treaties) and constitute tangible fasād (corruption), nullifying any moral or legal claim to self-defense. Consequently, Muslim states can no longer passively rely on orthodox legal instruments vulnerable to hegemonic distortion. We call for a fundamental reconceptualization of Middle Eastern security architecture, shifting toward an independent, proactive collective defense pact grounded in Maqāṣid al-Sharī'ah, ensuring that the sovereignty of Muslim nations is no longer held hostage to geopolitical rivalries.]]>
