I posted something similar on Facebook a few days back, and thought I might get some useful feedback here.
- Iran is criticised for violating their obligations under the NNPT. But the NNPT was signed by The Shah, who was a US puppet deposed in 1979. I do not think this obliges the current Iranian regime to follow it. After a revolution, previous agreements do not apply. Just ask the Romanov family! Admittedly, they have not formally withdrawn from the treaty, I guess for fear of the consequences.
- Bombing Iran was probably illegal for Israel. The UN charter allows preventative military action (where attack is not imminent) but it is hard to see how Iran was a direct threat after Hamas and Hezbollah have been effectively emasculated.
- The US were under no direct threat and had not exhausted other options since negotiation was ongoing, so they could not legally attack Iran. However, it turns out that once Iran retaliate against Israel, the Israelis can retaliate against Iran (even though their initial attack might have been illegal). And once Israel is in a legal war with Iran they can ask allies for assistance.
- The future of international relations appears lawless. It was already largely lawless after Iraq, which was also illegal. And then Crimea. For 60 years the world agreed that you cannot just militarily attack other countries with impunity. Now you clearly can – so long as you have nukes.
- This helps Russia and China. Indeed, Russia attacking Ukraine can be justified on the same basis as Israel attacking Iran. They were preventing a threat from Ukraine and NATO, the latter being an organisation specifically created to oppose Russia. China’s case is different, because they claim Taiwan is not a sovereign country. Invading Taiwan would possibly be legal, since Taiwan’s status as a country is unclear.
- The US have lost any credibility as negotiators. Trump abandoned the last Iran deal in 2017. He abandoned NAFTA in 2018 and then did his own deal (USMCA). He has abandoned that deal now, with tariffs on Mexico and Canada. When you abandon deals, future deals become vacuous. This is again terrible for the future of foreign relations. Negotiation is pointless if the other party has a track record of not honouring deals. I cannot for the life of me see why Iran would negotiate with the US in good faith. They will promise to do this and not do that, and then do it in secret. Why wouldn’t they?
- Iran now have every incentive to build a bomb asap. I am not sure if they have the wherewithal to do so. According to Netanyahu, they were weeks away (he has been saying this for 15 years). If it is really as easy as he says, the Mullahs would surely do so. So why then did he think it made sense to attack?
- If the Iranian govt falls, the replacement could be worse. More likely the country falls into chaos and civil war like Iraq and some very bad actors get hold of some highly enriched Uranium, which is easy to turn into a dirty bomb.
- There is a bizarre movement to have the son of the Shah return as leader. I suspect this would be terrible. The Shah was installed by the US when they fomented a revolution against the only democratic middle east leader in history, Mohammed Mssadeh. The Iranian people would never accept him, and nor should they. The US would love him, as he is brought up in the US.
- Why can Iran not have nukes? Because they will use them to destroy Israel? That would be a nuclear armed Israel. I really doubt it. NK have not used them. Neither has Russia despite threats. Neither has any country since 1945. Everyone knows that if you use nukes your country, regime and personal life is over. Kaput. I don’t want Iran (or anyone really) to have nukes, but the mantra “we cannot allow Iran to have nukes” is just bluster. China, Russia, NK and Pakistan all have nukes – all despotic regimes. I wish they didn’t but they will not use them.
- And since I mentioned NK, remember that Trump was President and did nothing to dissuade him from his nuclear program. He got seriously played for a fool, as usual. He could have stopped them in their tracks. How? Announce a 145% tariff on all Chinese products until they bring their bovver boy into line. Surely you could not threaten tariffs like that?!
I have written on this and have said basically what you have.
Seems to me the best way to get fair dinkum regime change is to say after they have the bomb, if iran delivers a nuke to Israel then a few hundred will be headed towards Iran.
There are few people in Iran who want to die simply to destroy Israel
Sounds about right
Particularly re the US has lost all credibility etc
Iran might not have the capacity to make nuclear weapons, but there are other much cheaper WMDs that they and many other countries without nukes would have the capacity to create (e.g., novel influenza variants). So if they just needed something nasty so they could be seen as a threat that could get you back no matter what, there are options that would be easier to hide and easier to create.
From time immemorial, we have been trying to find justifications for whatever wars we find ourselves in. The law reflects some of this, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the moral or practical case for or against any particular war.
Whether or not one war or another is “legal” is complete nonsense. The notion that the UN can make something “legal” is nonsense. And yes, “international law” is a complete nonsense.
Let’s remember: the Libyan intervention was “legal” insofar as it was authorised by the UN Security Council. What a disaster that turned out to be! Far worse than anything Israel and the US have done in Iran (at least so far).
War is inherently lawless. If it were not lawless, it’d mean countries like the USA would have to enforce the law. And as we’ve seen with the EU and the situation in Ukraine (the EU is still importing energy from Russia!), it’s not going to be the EU enforcing any law!
Then of course there is the question of who watches the watchers: the USA is both the guarantor of the current world order and its most flagrant violator. Who really is going to punish the USA for its violations? No one.
And then there’s the even worse scenario: when the USA is no longer the guarantor of the world order. Ironically, once you remove the world’s most flagrant violator of “lawful” interventions from any international presence or influence, we will find ourselves in world of deep lawlessness.
All of this is to say: I think bombing Iran is totally justified, most of all because it worked. I want Israel and the USA to be stronger in comparison to the current regime in Iran, who I consider the chief sponsor of terrorism in the region. I trust Israel and the USA more than I do Iran. And so this intervention is to me is justified and good.
Thanks for the detailed reply Antonius.
I disagree that the law has nothing to do with the moral or practical justification of a particular war. While the law is often violated, the idea of not invading except in specified circumstance is moral and practical – if it were followed. This does not make international law nonsense any more than national laws against murder are nonsense. And the war in Libya being legal does not mean the law is nonsense either – only that it is hard to completely codify anything.
War is not completely lawless, by its nature. Chemical warfare has hardly been used in 100 years. Leaders have been gaoled for crimes against humanity. Putin cannot travel to most countries. The ICC and ICJ still exist, and their rules and rulings are important symbolic. Russia, Israel and the US are not signatories which means they openly believe they are above any law. Which I agree is a big problem.
As to the US being both the enforcer and violator, I agree, and I think my post included comments to this effect. I worry very much about them stepping further back from their role and leaving the world effectively lawless with Russia and China free to do what they like. As I said in my post, if you have nukes you can get away with a lot. But Russia could have been brought to its knees with a strong US president, who was prepared to lead regardless of reelection.
On the Iran war, I don’t know what you mean by “trust Israel and the US”. Trust to do what? I trust the US to do whatever gives Trump and erection. I trust Israel to do whatever will keeps Bibi out of gaol. I wish these leaders and their electors were better. (They are a hell of a lot better than Iran, agreed). Nevertheless, unless they invade Iran you can expect them to develop nukes, dirty bombs and chemical weapons as fast as they can.
International law is nonsense in the sense that no one is ever going to enforce the rules in any meaningful or consistent way.
At best, international law is like the codes of chivalry — general guidelines of conduct that people try to abide by.
And the only thing stopping Russia using nukes is the massive response from countries like the USA. It’s not international law. (Aside: the last time chemicals were deployed in warfare were by Syria and Iran!)
I trust Israel and the USA more generally to make better and more moral decisions than Iran. Low bar, I know, but these are our options. Comparing Israel and the USA to an ideal is not practically the point — at some stage, you’ve got to choose sides given the situation.
Iran is riven with Mossad spies and institutional knowledge and structures have been decimated. Israel has done something remarkable. The idea that Iran will just “develop nukes” is fanciful to me.
Before Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, idiots like Mearsheimer were saying Israel were fucked. They might well be fucked in the long term. But in the short term, they’ve destroyed Hezbollah, obtained the Golan Heights, killed off the Shia influence in Syria, and made massive blows against the Iranian state. Militarily speaking, it’s been a remarkable set of victories by what I consider the better of all the options available in the region.
After all that, why would Israel be a signatory to the ICC or ICJ and follow its rules? As far as I see it, Israel has done remarkable feats that have harmed malign influences in the region and ensured Israel’s longevity. It’s been excellent.
Of course, medium to long-term, who knows? Blowback can be catastrophic. And this could have been a massive mistake. But for now, it looks to me like Israel are winning in ways that their boosters would never have dreamed and overall it’s been a boon to what I consider the better of the available options.
international law is based on a rules based order. Israel and then the USa then blatantly broke those rules.
how did it work? It was also based on the theory Iran wanted to destroy Israel and thus Iran would be destroyed. A pity there was no evidence for this guff
Iran has blatantly broken those rules countless times by, among other things, sponsoring terrorist organisations and directly threatening sovereign nations it has beefs with.
Of course, it’s a horrible mess of rule breaking all round. But the point is “international law” is better thought of as codes of chivalry. There is no sovereign enforcing international law and you should be fearful if there ever is one.
Insofar as there is an enforcer, it’s the USA. And you can well argue that what Israel and the USA did is just punishing Iran’s contraventions of the rules-based order.
Why di they not get UN support then. That is rules based order.
Both the USA and Israel have both broken a rules based order before so this is not a one off and it plays into Trump’s absurd might is right thought bubble
you have yet to show what sponsoring terrorism has to do with having a nuke