The U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran have sparked intense debate over whether the attack is right or wrong from several perspectives: international law, morality, history, and realpolitik. At the center are questions of preemptive self-defense and humanitarian intervention.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The attack constitutes clear violations of international law and the UN Charter. The fundamental prohibition of military violence in the UN Charter has only two exceptions: self-defense and authorization by the UN Security Council. Neither of these applies.
A central part of the debate on the Iran war pits moral arguments against existing international law. In the debate on humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the core question is whether military violence to protect civilians is permissible without UN approval. Humanitarian intervention refers to military violence in another state to stop mass atrocities against civilians.
This article tests the thought experiment of disregarding international law’s current rules on the prohibition of violence and state sovereignty. Instead, the attack on Iran is assessed based on proposals for humanitarian intervention and R2P, where human rights are prioritized over state sovereignty. The starting point is a wish world, built on a universal moral conception, where humanitarian intervention is permissible without UN approval.
First, the concepts of humanitarian intervention and R2P need clarification. Humanitarian intervention has been used as a concept in several cases: when Tanzania militarily invaded Uganda in 1978 to depose dictator Idi Amin, when Vietnam invaded Pol Pot’s genocidal regime in Cambodia in 1979, and when NATO attacked Yugoslavia (now Serbia) in 1999 to assist the Kosovo Albanian minority.
In connection with the Kosovo intervention, a broad view emerged (at least in the West) that the intervention, while violating international law, was nevertheless morally right – illegal and legitimate at the same time. Proposals were made to change international law so that morality and international law would coincide, and so that future equivalents of the Kosovo intervention would be permissible under international law even without UN approval.
On a Canadian initiative, an expert group was established: The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). In 2001, the commission presented its report, coining the now-established concept of “Responsibility to Protect.” The aim was to move beyond the term “humanitarian intervention,” which was considered too controversial. The ICISS report opened the door to humanitarian intervention to protect civilians without UN approval while listing criteria for when such intervention is permissible. Thus, the ICISS report serves as a suitable benchmark in the hypothetical wish world where humanitarian intervention without UN approval is permitted.
One important condition is met: The Islamic regime engages in mass murder and widespread oppression
In reality, the Iraq war occurred in 2003. Then, the U.S. and Britain used the same arguments that Israel and the U.S. are now using against Iran. The Iraq war resulted not only in the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein but also in hundreds of thousands of deaths among the Iraqi civilian population and an estimated 5,000 dead soldiers from the U.S. and Britain. In addition, the chaos in Iraq (as well as in Syria) paved the way for the rise and conquests of the Islamic State, the consequences of which are still felt in Europe.
Academics and politicians who had previously advocated for radically changed international law abandoned the ICISS Commission’s most far-reaching proposals. At the 2005 UN World Summit, the world’s states did accept states’ responsibility to protect, but it would continue to be in accordance with the UN Charter. That is, military intervention requires UN approval.
Returning to the hypothetical wish world: Does the attack on Iran meet the R2P criteria in the ICISS report? One important condition is met: The Islamic regime engages in mass murder and widespread oppression. But R2P also requires reasonable prospects that the intervention will stop persecution and suffering, and not make the situation worse in the long term. An intervention should therefore take place with clear objectives, an unambiguous mandate, and be supported by sufficient resources.
The U.S.’s objective for the operation, however, varies depending on which representative is asked and which day, but Iranian democracy has not been a prominent goal. Donald Trump has even stated that his ideal solution is the one the U.S. achieved in Venezuela: the regime remains, but with partially new faces in the same system.
Furthermore: While the ICISS report specifically speaks of clear rules of engagement aimed at distinguishing and protecting civilians (in Iran), U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has now explicitly said that there should be no “stupid rules of engagement.”
The ICISS report also states that a mandate for intervention should first be sought in the UN Security Council. Only when such an attempt has failed can action without a UN mandate be considered. In that case, it should instead be carried out with the support of a regional organization. No such efforts have been made.
The warfare against Iran is thus almost an antithesis to what the ICISS report requires
As mentioned, the intervention should also have reasonable chances of succeeding in its stated goal. Professor Anna Jarstad has explained how difficult this is (DN Debatt 3/4). Almost all independent assessors believe that regime change without ground troops is unlikely. Even with a ground operation, the outcome is uncertain. The U.S. has completely ruled out its own ground operation. Instead, Trump has called on Iranian civilians – unarmed students and women – to take to the streets where they will face the regime’s armed security forces. Alternatively, that Kurdish and other ethnically based guerrilla groups should intervene.
The warfare against Iran is thus almost an antithesis to what the ICISS report requires. Even with a radically changed international law, where individual rights are placed above the UN Charter’s prohibition of violence and state sovereignty, the U.S. and Israeli attacks – as carried out – are impermissible.
This is not only about the Iran war. The U.S. and Israeli war further weakens the arguments for changing international law to protect civilians. The risk of abuse and decades-long regional catastrophes, with many civilian deaths and massive refugee flows, is simply too great.
Original article: www.dn.se
