The new episode in the war against Iran is unlike the previous ones, which were either conducted directly or mainly through proxies. We are witnessing a large-scale aggression that is a turning point not only in the history of the Middle East but also in the history of the world. With this war, the world has entered a new era: it heralds the end of the old-world order, however flawed and perpetuating certain injustices, and a shift towards a global disorder where the power of military strikes, rather than international law, would be the basis of international relations.
Unfortunately, we are moving from international law to Epstein’s law (the power of money, no moral or legal boundaries on the use of violence, impunity, perfidy). This declared and glorified violation of conventional and customary international law is deeply troubling. The pusillanimity of other Western countries (the European Union, the UK, Canada, Australia…), even their complicity in some respects, in the face of this reality, does not bode well for the Middle East region or the entire planet. We have entered an era where the commission of the most serious crimes under international law (crimes of aggression, crimes of war, crimes against humanity and genocide), as well as the possible use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, can be discussed with unprecedented ease.
The American aggression against Iran is certainly a violation of international law, setting aside the blatant and boundless rhetoric of this pseudo-principle of pre-emptive strikes concocted by some “tailors” of international law. The adage “a good offence is the best defence” is not a principle of international law. It is a few words that Dick Cheney put in George W. Bush’s mouth to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Neither the Americans nor their vassals were acting in self-defence. It is well established in international public law that self-defence is a right belonging to any state that has suffered armed aggression. It is the state’s inherent right to repel this aggression and restore legality. Paradoxically, even the defenders of the so-called ‘anticipatory self-defence’ are unable to prove that the American action fulfills the criteria of such action and “show a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation (Caroline test)’’. Let’s be clear, we are dealing with a military aggression, a violation of one of the few peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens). Moreover, these strikes took place while the two sides were in the midst of negotiations in Geneva. This is no less than a flagrant breach of the principle of good faith, a “basic principle governing the creation and performance of legal obligations (International Court of Justice)” because “Trust and confidence are inherent in international cooperation, in particular in an age when this cooperation in many fields is becoming increasingly essential (ICJ)”. To say that this aggression and these indiscriminate bombings aim to protect and liberate Iranians is a tasteless joke.
This aggression is also a message/threat that must be clearly understood by all governments, starting with the Canadian government, which, ironically, by supporting this aggression, is only legitimizing a future forced annexation of Canada (and Greenland, etc.) by the United States! It seems Mark Carney’s Davos speech was nothing more than a youthful burst of adrenaline rather than a genuine Canadian strategy and vision of international relations.
On the ground, the Iranians have undoubtedly suffered a crushing blow (destruction of nuclear facilities, paralysis of air defence and many other military and civilian infrastructures, assassination of high-ranked officers), but far from a fatal one. The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader (86 years old and suffering from cancer) is a significant psychological and political blow, but it could also have the opposite effect. It may strengthen the Iranian government, weakened by the December protests. Surely, it has further reinforced solidarity among Shiites worldwide. Khamenei is not only a political leader, but he is also a religious authority (Marjāa Taqlid) for the majority of Shia globally (in Pakistan, India, Bahrain, Lebanon, Iraq). The Americans do not seem to grasp the Iranian leader’s dual status, as they failed to understand that the Iranian constitutional system is based on sophisticated – and unique – rules of independence/interdependencies between the different powers and within each power, which makes its collapse a daring task. This ignorance/miscalculation means that, on the ground, the conflict’s escalation is practically inevitable.
Moreover, the Iranians have stamina and an almost historical capacity to withstand strikes and aggression. This is to say that the longer the Iranians manage to prolong this conflict, the more the Americans, who have decided to wage war on behalf of others, will pay the price economically, militarily, and institutionally (democratic erosion). This is to say also that this American impatience to achieve the illegal objective of overthrowing the Iranian regime could translate into the use of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the risk is real! If the “Pandora’s Box’’ of nuclear weapons is opened, the Russians and Chinese will have no other choice but to follow the American “model” in resolving their respective conflicts with Ukraine and Taiwan…
While the Americans were trapped by Trump’s megalomaniacal ambitions and his fears of the Epstein files’ revelation, other nations and governments must be more proactive in defending the fundamental principles of international law, beginning with the principles of the UN Charter. Speaking of the decline of the Roman Empire, the author of the “Lettres persanes” (Persian Letters) wrote in 1734 “How many wars do we see undertaken in the history of Rome, how much blood shed, how many peoples destroyed (…), But how did this project for invading all nations end (…) except by satiating the happiness of five or six monsters? We build up our power only to see it the better overturned!” Food for thought.
