Some good points well made about what the concept of a just war vs a legal war. However, I think it fair also to take into account intentions, plans and probable outcomes. It looks as if some civilians in various countries have already paid a price for this adventure. I suspect that the intentions of the two national leaders who signalled go are much more focussed on domestic consumption and indeed their own political careers - not a great starting point.
But what are the credible plans for actual regime change? So how does this help Iranians ? We’ve seen enough of these adventures end in chaos and failed states. I’m no defender of the Iranian regime ( the backbone of which, the revolutionary guard, seems very much still in power), but I want good intentions, good planning, and competence to achieve the task. I worry that we don’t have any of these things.
Iran's killing of protesters is bad and completely unjustifiable, but I'd be hesitant to justify killing their leader on that basis - should this have led the US to kill the Egyptian leader following the Rabaa massacre, or the Bahraini leaders after their own crackdown on dissent and execution of various Shia leaders? I
In relation to being a nefarious influence in the region, should we be preparing for war with the UAE due to its arming of the RSS in Sudan or actions in Yemen?
This is not whataboutery but Mark appears to be applying a standard to Iran that we would be unwilling to do with our own allies in the region (see also our complete lack of action against Saudi Arabia following the 9/11 attacks carried out largey by their own citizens with quasi-state backing at times)...
Good post. I also agree that Wolfson has a very good point. If the net effect of "international law" has become to make it harder to stop rogue states doing evil things, then it has become an immoral force and we should do away with it or remake it totally. Unfortunately it's been clear for some time that Hermer thinks the West is the biggest source of evil in the world, and we really need to stop listening to people like that.
Mark, I have unearthed my undergraduate and quasi-graduate (Staff College) "Just War" essays from 38 years ago. The best of them says; if you can trust the multinational arbitor of Just, or indeed war, then put your trust in the UN. I argued that you can't, then because of a bi-polar world, now because it's even more complex.
My conclusion, to the winner the definition of Just ended up in a furious tutorial argument - victor was the word. We didn't know then that winning Gulf2 was a loss.
I sat in the desert 35 years ago explaining to the Jockery that whilst we were fighting for the principle of not invading states, we were only doing it for oil. (I had been seen walking away from the Onward Christian Soldiers preaching from the Padre).
I was in Benghazi immediately after the revolution ended. Whilst the schisms geographically and in belief are not so obvious I suspect Iran will again breakdown into fiefdoms. Notwithstanding, I'll be there to have a butchers.
A separate but related subject was the harmonisation of EU policies to create a genuine EU project. The Prof, somewhere to the left of left in 1983, believed the EU would fail if harmonisation was driven from above. He was scathing about the League of Nations and UN for the same reason.
If I was more cynical, I’d suggest that the concept of legality under international law is simply a means of justifying one’s own impotence and rationalizing inactivity. It provides a legal fig leaf for those who lack the means to act. Ben Judah in his piece in the Times more or less stated this in his statement that “we are weak”.
Excellent. UN definitions since 1945 of 'justifiable' wars have meant truly awful crimes against humanity have continued post-Nuremburg.
Liberal appeasement of monsters never works. As for the naive intellectuals in Paris in 1979 and now no doubt 'Hands off Iran' radicals, who ultimately hate the US more than the mass murderers of Teheran, they don't realise that the Wilsonian 'wouldn't it be nice' diplomacy has never worked. The veto? Where was the UN over Pol Pot, or did the sovereignty of Cambodia as a Wilson style independent state count for more?
They F about in negotiations continually, made fools of Obama and Biden and purified well above what was required for peaceful domestic nuclear generation...guess what they were building a s...ing .bomb?
A disaster as we backed nutcases in a Cold War context
Like FDR at Yalta, wishing things turn out nice and that at heart “people who love people are the luckiest etc” has never worked however much we squint and hope it does.E.g Saudi Arabia gets to sit on UN committee on women”s rights. Only time of any use was Korea and that only because Soviets had out played themselves and walked out. Some humans do not share Wilson”s high ideals and might be awful. Love the decalog down the decades of the mass murderers, sadists and perverts who in part got legitimised by appearing at the lectern in New York.
Screaming UN every time from people who basically do not EVER believe in armed force is a luxury people under the yoke cannot afford- tea and biscuits and a good chat is not diplomacy that works- Article 5- ie push it Stalin and we will do you in defence of small nations after Czechs in 47 far more realistic and a creation of not thinking other Munich’s a good idea- Thankyou a giant Ernest Bevin. - a superb Labour Foreign Secretary if your a liberal European who dislikes Democratic centralist mass murderers in the shape of the Soviet Union. Thank God he created NATO as an effective, realistic bulwark rather than a useless UN..
UN ,like L of Nations, a lovely idea for a world that has never and cannot exist. Wilson was a prick to think otherwise as AH, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc prove.
Without putting boots on the ground, nothing will change in Iran, the IRGC will fight to the end, they have it all to lose and nothing to gain from regime change. A lawful war vs a just war are two sides of the same coin also if we're going after rogue nations how long before the world takes on Trump's America. Was/is the regime in iran awful, yes, but why is it always down to west to sort middle eastern shit out. After all we did so well in Libya, Iraq and Syria.
Too the people and politicians in the UK calling for UK involvement, please feel free to join up and take part.
Since the UN Charter was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, it is a treaty of the US and therefore is part of the "supreme Law of the Land" for purposes of the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). However, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not self-executing. Article II of the Constitution obligates the chief executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Most likely, impeachment and removal is the only remedy for violations
Interesting argument that I can follow, but it reeks of such Western bias, bordering on arrogance, that it devalues much of the points. As an exercise, take off the western (US/UK/EU) tinted glasses, & argue the case for Iran’s response as if you are their defense lawyer. It does help seeing the situation from another’s perspective & historical experience.
I’m with the author in that I think that the question “was it legal“ is trumped by the question if it was wise. I’m not with several commenters here in that I think that an illegal war will only very rarely be wise, if defined by the outcomes being net positive. If history is to be the guide, we have very few such examples, with the intervention in the ex-Yugoslavia possibility one of a few exceptions. I disagree, in particular, with the people who think that a leader being evil is a sufficient reason for waging a war.
On Europe, I think that hiding behind the law is cowardly. The participation by the Europeans in this war is unwise and that’s enough for a reason.
Just a thought - doesn't the Iranian theocracy trace its roots back to "regime change" ? A democratic government overthrown by CIA and MI6 in the1950s to protect oil interests ? "Sapiens" is the least appropriate title for our species ...
Seems a little silly to talk about international law at this point or suggest that by attacking military bases in Arab countries, Iran is somehow violating it. The right to self defense is one of the most basic and natural rights there is and those bases are part of the logistical infrastructure used to attack Iran.
Some good points well made about what the concept of a just war vs a legal war. However, I think it fair also to take into account intentions, plans and probable outcomes. It looks as if some civilians in various countries have already paid a price for this adventure. I suspect that the intentions of the two national leaders who signalled go are much more focussed on domestic consumption and indeed their own political careers - not a great starting point.
But what are the credible plans for actual regime change? So how does this help Iranians ? We’ve seen enough of these adventures end in chaos and failed states. I’m no defender of the Iranian regime ( the backbone of which, the revolutionary guard, seems very much still in power), but I want good intentions, good planning, and competence to achieve the task. I worry that we don’t have any of these things.
Iraq …. And Stuff happens.
Iran's killing of protesters is bad and completely unjustifiable, but I'd be hesitant to justify killing their leader on that basis - should this have led the US to kill the Egyptian leader following the Rabaa massacre, or the Bahraini leaders after their own crackdown on dissent and execution of various Shia leaders? I
In relation to being a nefarious influence in the region, should we be preparing for war with the UAE due to its arming of the RSS in Sudan or actions in Yemen?
This is not whataboutery but Mark appears to be applying a standard to Iran that we would be unwilling to do with our own allies in the region (see also our complete lack of action against Saudi Arabia following the 9/11 attacks carried out largey by their own citizens with quasi-state backing at times)...
Good post. I also agree that Wolfson has a very good point. If the net effect of "international law" has become to make it harder to stop rogue states doing evil things, then it has become an immoral force and we should do away with it or remake it totally. Unfortunately it's been clear for some time that Hermer thinks the West is the biggest source of evil in the world, and we really need to stop listening to people like that.
“The curse of history is that those who should read it never do”
I wish I had written that.
How will all the bombing enable or empower the people to rise up and topple the hateful theocracy in Iran?
Mark, I have unearthed my undergraduate and quasi-graduate (Staff College) "Just War" essays from 38 years ago. The best of them says; if you can trust the multinational arbitor of Just, or indeed war, then put your trust in the UN. I argued that you can't, then because of a bi-polar world, now because it's even more complex.
My conclusion, to the winner the definition of Just ended up in a furious tutorial argument - victor was the word. We didn't know then that winning Gulf2 was a loss.
I sat in the desert 35 years ago explaining to the Jockery that whilst we were fighting for the principle of not invading states, we were only doing it for oil. (I had been seen walking away from the Onward Christian Soldiers preaching from the Padre).
I was in Benghazi immediately after the revolution ended. Whilst the schisms geographically and in belief are not so obvious I suspect Iran will again breakdown into fiefdoms. Notwithstanding, I'll be there to have a butchers.
A separate but related subject was the harmonisation of EU policies to create a genuine EU project. The Prof, somewhere to the left of left in 1983, believed the EU would fail if harmonisation was driven from above. He was scathing about the League of Nations and UN for the same reason.
He was prescient on the big subjects at least.
If I was more cynical, I’d suggest that the concept of legality under international law is simply a means of justifying one’s own impotence and rationalizing inactivity. It provides a legal fig leaf for those who lack the means to act. Ben Judah in his piece in the Times more or less stated this in his statement that “we are weak”.
We are doing other things… maybe.
Either you are tooled up and prepared… or tooled up and looking for an excuse.
Excellent. UN definitions since 1945 of 'justifiable' wars have meant truly awful crimes against humanity have continued post-Nuremburg.
Liberal appeasement of monsters never works. As for the naive intellectuals in Paris in 1979 and now no doubt 'Hands off Iran' radicals, who ultimately hate the US more than the mass murderers of Teheran, they don't realise that the Wilsonian 'wouldn't it be nice' diplomacy has never worked. The veto? Where was the UN over Pol Pot, or did the sovereignty of Cambodia as a Wilson style independent state count for more?
They F about in negotiations continually, made fools of Obama and Biden and purified well above what was required for peaceful domestic nuclear generation...guess what they were building a s...ing .bomb?
Afghanistan worked out really well, yes?
A disaster as we backed nutcases in a Cold War context
Like FDR at Yalta, wishing things turn out nice and that at heart “people who love people are the luckiest etc” has never worked however much we squint and hope it does.E.g Saudi Arabia gets to sit on UN committee on women”s rights. Only time of any use was Korea and that only because Soviets had out played themselves and walked out. Some humans do not share Wilson”s high ideals and might be awful. Love the decalog down the decades of the mass murderers, sadists and perverts who in part got legitimised by appearing at the lectern in New York.
Screaming UN every time from people who basically do not EVER believe in armed force is a luxury people under the yoke cannot afford- tea and biscuits and a good chat is not diplomacy that works- Article 5- ie push it Stalin and we will do you in defence of small nations after Czechs in 47 far more realistic and a creation of not thinking other Munich’s a good idea- Thankyou a giant Ernest Bevin. - a superb Labour Foreign Secretary if your a liberal European who dislikes Democratic centralist mass murderers in the shape of the Soviet Union. Thank God he created NATO as an effective, realistic bulwark rather than a useless UN..
UN ,like L of Nations, a lovely idea for a world that has never and cannot exist. Wilson was a prick to think otherwise as AH, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc prove.
Without putting boots on the ground, nothing will change in Iran, the IRGC will fight to the end, they have it all to lose and nothing to gain from regime change. A lawful war vs a just war are two sides of the same coin also if we're going after rogue nations how long before the world takes on Trump's America. Was/is the regime in iran awful, yes, but why is it always down to west to sort middle eastern shit out. After all we did so well in Libya, Iraq and Syria.
Too the people and politicians in the UK calling for UK involvement, please feel free to join up and take part.
One can always find a reason not to do something.
The US-Israeli effort can only go so far. The rest is down to the Iranian people. That's the deal. And that's what they wanted.
Good article by Stephen Daisley in the Spectator; "If international law says Khamenei should still be in place, maybe international law deserves to be detonated along with him" You can add Lord Hermer and Jonathan Powell to that. And Starmer. https://spectator.com/article/international-law-should-not-prevent-regime-change-in-iran/
What about legality under US law, Mark, even before entering the minefield of international law?
Since the UN Charter was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, it is a treaty of the US and therefore is part of the "supreme Law of the Land" for purposes of the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). However, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not self-executing. Article II of the Constitution obligates the chief executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Most likely, impeachment and removal is the only remedy for violations
Interesting argument that I can follow, but it reeks of such Western bias, bordering on arrogance, that it devalues much of the points. As an exercise, take off the western (US/UK/EU) tinted glasses, & argue the case for Iran’s response as if you are their defense lawyer. It does help seeing the situation from another’s perspective & historical experience.
I’m with the author in that I think that the question “was it legal“ is trumped by the question if it was wise. I’m not with several commenters here in that I think that an illegal war will only very rarely be wise, if defined by the outcomes being net positive. If history is to be the guide, we have very few such examples, with the intervention in the ex-Yugoslavia possibility one of a few exceptions. I disagree, in particular, with the people who think that a leader being evil is a sufficient reason for waging a war.
On Europe, I think that hiding behind the law is cowardly. The participation by the Europeans in this war is unwise and that’s enough for a reason.
I see Simon French has titled his latest substack “Bored of Peace” - seems pretty apposite to me.
Just a thought - doesn't the Iranian theocracy trace its roots back to "regime change" ? A democratic government overthrown by CIA and MI6 in the1950s to protect oil interests ? "Sapiens" is the least appropriate title for our species ...
Seems a little silly to talk about international law at this point or suggest that by attacking military bases in Arab countries, Iran is somehow violating it. The right to self defense is one of the most basic and natural rights there is and those bases are part of the logistical infrastructure used to attack Iran.