Subscriptions
Read our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Can Trump’s attack on Iran be justified? Is it wise? And is the administration competent enough to make it a success?
My answers to these three questions are: Possibly, No, and Hell, No!
Justified? Possibly – Argument One
There is certainly a moral argument in favour of the war: that Iran is run by an evil regime, which has ruthlessly oppressed its own people – most recently by brutally suppressing protests in January, resulting in the deaths of thousands of its own citizens.
It has also systematically spread insecurity and terror overseas, through its support for regional and international terrorist groups, and collaboration with authoritarian regimes like Putin’s Russia, to whom Iran has sent millions of drones to help Putin prosecute his illegal war in Ukraine.
For many supporters of the war, this argument alone is reason enough. I recently sat next to a prominent American-Iranian citizen and a well-known Russian opposition figure at a lunch in Washington DC, who both told me they strongly backed the intervention in Iran, and indeed would welcome more such actions by Western powers to eliminate dictators everywhere else in the world.
Even if the outcome of such interventions can not be guaranteed, they felt that the removal of brutal leaders at the top of repressive regimes at least opens up a chance for positive change. For them, regime change is not just highly desirable, but should be the main purpose of the war.
Operation Epic Fury: A Mass of Shifting Objectives
Dr Charles Kriel looks at the Iran War as an information operation and identifies what the West still refuses to understand about it
Justified? Possibly – Argument Two
A different argument is advanced by other supporters of the war – that it is a necessary operation, justified on defensive grounds, because Iran is intent on rebuilding its nuclear and missiles programmes, badly damaged by last year’s 12 Day War, will never be reconciled to the existence of Israel, and will never drop its posture of implacable hostility to the US.
Some would even argue that since the 1979 revolution, Iran has always been at war with the US and Israel, making a definitive showdown between them inevitable at some stage.
For proponents of this argument, it also makes absolute sense for the US and Israel to launch their operation now, because the Iranian regime is at its weakest point in decades, both at home, in the aftermath of the massive January protests, and abroad, as a result of successful Israeli attacks both on its own military structure, and on regional proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the downfall of another critical regional ally, the Assad regime, in Syria.
One might also ask why Iran is the priority over, say, Russia, as another equally brutal regime, and which arguably presents even more of a security threat to America and its allies.
Nor can Iran count on any substantive support from its ostensible major allies, Russia and China, as Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, and China cannot afford to endure a prolonged blockade of its critical energy supplies from the Gulf.
Both these groups would dismiss the legal arguments against the war – that it was not sanctioned internationally by an explicit UN Security Council resolution, or domestically through the approval of Congress, or triggered by the actual prospect of an imminent Iranian attack on Israeli or US interests.
They would argue that it turns international law on its head to suggest that Iran should be able to claim protection from attack on legal grounds when Iran has repeatedly violated almost every principle of the UN and its major conventions.
They would argue that it is naïve and unrealistic to expect the UN Security Council to authorise action against Iran, given the veto power of Russia and China, who routinely violate UN standards themselves, and mainly use their positions on the Council not to uphold international law, but to prevent effective action by the US and its allies.
And they would also argue that it makes no sense to wait until after Iran has successfully rebuilt its military capacity, or after it has attacked a US or Israeli asset or ally in the region, before acting against Iran themselves. Far better to act now, while Iran is still weak.
Furthermore, precisely because the attack was launched without any elaborate efforts to build up an international coalition or muster support in Congress, it granted the operation the benefit of surprise, resulting in the early operational successes, such as the decimation of the senior leadership of the regime, including the Supreme Leader himself, Ayatollah Khamenei.
They would argue that these ends justify the means.
As someone who has always believed in the importance of the international rules-based order, I find many of these arguments to be uncomfortable, and somewhat self-serving, particularly the legal ones, since the US has never hesitated to criticise other countries for acting in violation of international law, yet at the same time, has frequently turned a blind eye to violations committed by its own partners, notably Israel itself.
One might also ask why Iran is the priority over, say, Russia, as another equally brutal regime, and which arguably presents even more of a security threat to America and its allies.
However, I do not entirely dismiss the case in favour of the war, either, because it is true that the international system designed to uphold international law is not working, it is true that Iran is a dangerous and brutal regime, and it is unsatisfactory to contemplate standing by while Iran continues its egregious behaviour, whether to its own people, or abroad. Just because the US is not proposing to take on every rogue regime, doesn’t mean there isn’t a case for tackling Iran.
