Iran and the Consequences of International Law

It’s astonishing how many experts on international law there seem to be. They all seem to know it, chapter and verse assume that any action taken by the USA or Israel must, by definition, breach international law. And that tells you all you need to know about their motivations.

Of course they can never provide any detail of which clause of which treaty they are talking about. Quiz them and then they start spluttering about the UN. As if the UN is the arbiter of when a nation is justified in taking miliary action against another.

I make no pretence to be an expert in international law. Why would I? I’m not even a domestic lawyer, let alone an international one. I do know, however, that launching a military attack on one nation by another does not necessarily mean that it is illegal. Self defence and pre-emptive self-defence can be totally justified. Both Israel and the USA have been attacked by Iran, and Iran has been guilty of issuing almost daily bellicose threats to both countries with its leaders’ constant mantras of ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’. It is somewhat ironic that having continually chanted those words, Ayatollah Khomeini suffered ‘Death FROM America’.

I see some people arguing that all the Iranian regime wanted was peace and it was no threat to anyone. Seriously, that’s what some are saying, trying to keep a straight face at the same time. Iran has been a threat to both Israel and the USA ever since the 1979 revolution, yet some people seem to like ignoring the basic facts of history. A simple internet search provides all the evidence you need.

Article 51 of the UN Charter states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…”. In addition, it can also be argued that an attack is justified if an attack is imminent and unavoidable. Any international lawyer worth their salt would be able to argue this is exactly the scenario here, given Iran’s current and planned ballistic missile capabilities.

Where there is more doubt is about the legality of targeting a head of state for assassination. International law leaves less room for interpretation here, but I still think there is a good case to argue, given Khameni was Commander in Chief and therefor the presidential palace, where he met his maker, was a justifiable military target.

The UK government’s response has been timid, tepid and embarrassing. As George W Bush said after 9/11: “You’re either with us, or you’re on the side of the terrorists”. Simplistic maybe, but sitting on the fence should never be an option for a country like Britain. Starmer did take a stance of sorts by refusing to let American bombers take off from Diego Garcia or RAF Fairford. All he has done since then is to call on Iran not to respond to the attacks and for things to de-escalate. How courageous.

If both the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers can issue statements of support and understanding for the US/Israeli actions, why can’t ours? After all, we currently hold the presidency of the UN Security Council, so it is surely important that we state our position clearly. Either we are for the action or we’re not. Both positions can be justified. Sitting on the fence and displaying the weakness of a wobbling jelly cannot.

The Prime Minister should come before the House of Commons tomorrow and state his position very clearly. Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage have all stated their positions very clearly. It’s about time Keir Starmer did the same, rather than hide behind the well-trodden path of saying ‘well on the one hand’. Show some leadership, Prime Minister.