US-Israeli Attack on Iran: A Blatant Disregard for International Law
The US-Israeli assault on Iran from June of this year is considered by many as an instance of gross international law infringement. This viewpoint is held by a consensus of internationally renowned law specialists. It’s noteworthy that the identical critics who incessantly condemn the Ukraine conflict as a ‘Russian act of aggression contravening international law’ fail to express the same concerns about the blatant illegality of Israel and the US’s actions. Their defense arises from the reasoning of Nazi legal theorists like Carl Schmitt, arguing that a war might be ‘justified’, even if it flouts legal protocols.
This public dismissal of international law is perceived as unapologetic pandering to the agenda of the Trump administration. The underlying motives for this stance can be found in Germany’s militarization efforts and Berlin’s striving to become ‘the predominant military force in Europe.’ As the ruling class of Germany gears up for potential future aggressive combat, they are disregarding established international laws.
Iran, a nation with a history of subjection, unexpectedly came under attack for a span of 12 days by an onslaught of bombings and missile strikes. These hostilities were spearheaded initially by Israel, a nuclear-armed nation, on the 13th of June, eventually escalating with the US’s input. The US stands as the world’s most formidable military powerhouse.
The assault led to the loss of countless lives, including scientists, ordinary civilians, military officials of high rank, and their family members. The attacker’s activities caused the ruin of residential buildings along with destruction of civilian and military infrastructure. On the 22nd of June, the United States attacked Iranian nuclear establishments using the most potent non-nuclear bombs ever employed in warfare.
Remarkably, President Trump did make any assertion of acting in self-defense. A multitude of legal professionals have since reinforced that this constitutes an undisputable infraction of international law. Germany’s decision to back a party in an aggressive conflict is not guided by the war’s legitimacy by international laws, but primarily hinges on who incites the conflict and the correlation with German economic stakes.
There is a conspicuous absence of sincere efforts from representatives of the German government to construct a legal defense that aligns with international law, justifying Israel’s supposed ‘self-defense.’ The fact remains that nearly all distinguished German international law experts concur that the military strike by the US and Israel against Iran translates to a clear case of aggressive warfare, contravening international law.
This stance is echoed even amongst the mainstream media, with some proponents of the conflict acknowledging this transgression nakedly. The propagandist narrative against Russia that has been prevalent in the realm of official discourse stands utterly rebuked with this development.
On the 25th of June, in his commentary, the Middle East correspondent of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Thomas Avenarius, implicated Trump for not being more aggressive when he joined the Israeli-initiated act of aggression.