The Principle of International Law

[Deereyme66]

Good article in my opinion from Chatham House – a long read but worthwhile:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/iran-attacks-president-trump-making-use-force-new-normal-and-casting-aside-international

[Deereyme66]

Some are critical of Bowen and other BBC journalists, and whilst not perfect, I usually find their analysis instructive and intelligent:

BBC News – Bowen: Three days in, we still have no idea where this war is heading – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c178z0p902vo?app-referrer=deep-link

[Siderite]

My big problem with Bowen is that he lets his own bias sway his output. Best exemplified when a weapons arsenal was found in a Gazan hospital and he did an earnest “in Palestine, it’s not uncommon for weapons to be anywhere” take. Which got him deserved mockery because, while I have no doubt that weapons are more profiligate there, I doubt stashes of AK-47s, grenades and other weapons are in every home for ordinary Palestinians and it’s not an excuse for weapons stashes in hospitals. Plus, he seems pig headed when it comes to errors. Errors happen, but I always have more respect for those who own it and learn over those who act like those who pointed it out are the real problem.

That said, I don’t have much of an issue with his article here. I have no trust that any of the Israelis or Americans have a knowledge of how to push for stability. It seems more chaotic than Iraq in 2003 and that didn’t end up well, despite early successes. The British stance of not getting fully involved, but backing our citizens and allies from Iranian strikes is probably the right one though.

One thing which will become frustrating is the seemingly inevitable polarisation of this topic, which I suspect will become like the Israel-Palestine or trans rights public debates. One side will say if you don’t back Israeli-American action you’re not a patriot and want the Iranian regime to continue to oppress its own citizens and ferment war elsewhere, even if you aren’t one of the shameless lickspittles for the Ayatollah. And the other will say if you find any joy in the Iranian regime failing, hoping for some positive change there and criticise protests with Ayatollah pictures (there have been some previously) and Iranian regime flags, you’re a warmonger and a white supremacist.

One thing this has shown is that the real loser since Oct 7th in terms of geopolitical standing has been the Islamic Republic. They have never been so weak, only offering pitiful retaliation, but retaliation aimed at countries not involved with the current war efforts. The rest of the Middle East have turned against them, not Israel-USA so far. Even the most hospitable towards Iran, in Qatar, have now cut off all ties with Iran. It’s isolated and its proxies have never been weaker.

[Deereyme66]

It might become a polarised topic, but I hope people don’t become embroiled in that, continue to question the legality of it based on international law, and make their own minds up about whether it’s the way to act. Because ultimately, who is benefitting from it? The Islamic Republic may be weaker, but it isn’t going to be eliminated, and without that the real danger of people from various sides and faiths suffering further as a result is deeply concerning.

[Siderite]

That is fine, but I suspect it very much won’t and discussions online and elsewhere will devolve into bad faith accusations against others. Given the nature of Reform, Restore, Kemi Badenoch’s Tories and the Greens, I very much doubt the political sphere will be without this too.

International law is very toothless and has done very little to prevent historical misdeeds from tyrants and it leaves democracies hamstrung. The actions against Serbia in the 90s were against International law, but I am very glad we took action to prevent Kosovo becoming another Bosnia. The UN’s legalism hindered in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90s. None of this means that the current actions are good and I think they will likely make things worse. However, I think the main concern should be over the latter – about what’s best for the people in the region. One thing that hasn’t helped has been allowing Iran to gain a foothold within the region, where it has fermented and participated in war with Israel, Syria and Yemen, alongside its severe domestic tyranny.

[Iron-awe]

Iran is behaving like a wounded animal just lashing out in anger and fear, the big losers are the Iranian people but it’s always the innocent who end up picking up the tab for any war if truth be told. Trump and Israel have no exit plan for their actions and unless they put boots on the ground the Islamic Republic will continue and the ordinary Iranian citizen who wants fairness and freedom will be persecuted terribly, these dictatorships always take it out on the innocent when they get a good kicking. As for the UK it should protect its own bases and citizens out in the region as best it can and tell Trump bollocks if he’s not happy with our response, he’s a bully and a thug who has torn up the international rule book to follow his own agenda of deflection surrounding several issues concerning himself.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Deereyme66]

Siderite wrote:

That is fine, but I suspect it very much won’t and discussions online and elsewhere will devolve into bad faith accusations against others. Given the nature of Reform, Restore, Kemi Badenoch’s Tories and the Greens, I very much doubt the political sphere will be without this too.

International law is very toothless and has done very little to prevent historical misdeeds from tyrants and it leaves democracies hamstrung. The actions against Serbia in the 90s were against International law, but I am very glad we took action to prevent Kosovo becoming another Bosnia. The UN’s legalism hindered in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90s. None of this means that the current actions are good and I think they will likely make things worse. However, I think the main concern should be over the latter – about what’s best for the people in the region. One thing that hasn’t helped has been allowing Iran to gain a foothold within the region, where it has fermented and participated in war with Israel, Syria and Yemen, alongside its severe domestic tyranny.

I fundamentally disagree with your stance on international law. It’s a principle that all countries should strive to uphold. The more a nation throws it out of the window, the worse the world will be. That’s my belief and one I can’t see shifting regardless of any online or physical polarised arguments. I don’t believe what’s playing out now is in any way shape or form going to be best for anyone, least of all Iranian’s striving for democracy and regime change.

[Iron Age]

International law is what separates the good guys from the bad guys.
I would hope we are one of the good guys.
Not sure about the US anymore.

[Siderite]

I am highly sceptical of how this will lead to an improvement and agree with much of what is said in Iron-Awe’s post. There have already been reports of Trump reaching out to people in the regime to work with and neither he or Netanyahu are motivated by humanitarian concerns, so won’t prioritise it, and have not displayed competence. I am happy Europe didn’t join in with the main operation, but there is also the fact that Trump has aided Russia against our and Ukrainian interests, threatened Denmark and NATO over Greenland and insulted us for war dead when we came to their aid in Afghanistan after 9/11. We aren’t their puppets and mutual support loses weight when Trump decides to wreck relationships.

I am, however, unconvinced what passes as international law today serves much good. International law would have had us abandon Kosovars to what befell the Bosniaks. It didn’t help in Rwanda when no-one did anything to prevent the genocide. This could be argued to be a failed case of international law being applied, but when this has so often happened, it shows it is already a busted flush. With Russian veto powers on the UN security council, any action of any kind in Syria’s civil war would no doubt have been against international law. Yet I would argue that this meant allowing Syrians to put up with chemical warfare and 500-600,000 dead. When Qasam Soleimani was killed there was talk of how this was wrong, against international law and that maybe he could have been brought to justice by other means. I don’t know how; it would have been impossible to have him arrested without a regime collapse and it helped neuter Iran, and help Syrians when he was killed.

None of this is me trying to force others to my beliefs. Others have different intepretations and that is fine. I could be wrong, so could everyone else. It would be good if international law did count for something, but right now it isn’t strong and only those with more democratic and liberal outlooks partake. Some might say that this is good because why lower to others’ level, but it creates an imbalance that favours dictatorships in enforcing their will. I am not saying we should abandon all forms of morality in foreign policy and act like an Iran, Russia or China, but I am less bothered about legalism over whether a no fly zone over Syria would have been illegal or not when it could very well have helped Syrian lives. Same here with Iran. Also, I agree that American adherence to more humanitarian bounds to conflict will likely decrease further with Trump and all concerns about where this ends up and deterioration are valid.

I just wanted to put forward a different perspective about this because it is my view and I have my concerns that the current situation has already worsened because of a more standoffish approach over the past 15 years that allowed Russia to strengthen, involve itself in Syria and then attack Ukraine, as well as Iran to attack Syria and spearhead wars against Saudi in Yemen and Israel with its proxies. Though, I do appreciate that this is complex and the failure of non-intervention does not mean intervention is the best course of action.

[Author]

Posts