The United States just recently started military hostilities with Iran. This withdrawal has sparked a storm of criticism and controversy, both over its legality and what it means for international norms. President Donald Trump ordered the strike without consulting the international community, necessitating an explanation of why he made this decision. In fact, critics claim that the U.S. administration never made a compelling case for launching the war. They caution that this move is a dangerous new precedent specifically for Developing Countries.
Now, Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran is being put to the test. Critics are most incensed that he dismissed, often publicly, the conclusions from his own national security agencies. At the time, these agencies overstated and mischaracterized the Iranian threat by suggesting through their statements that Iran was aggressively seeking a nuclear weapon. As far as Trump was concerned, Iran posed the greatest threat. He hasn’t offered any hard data to support this assertion.
Concerns Over Precedent
Don Rothwell, an international law professor, said in that same article that the consequences of the U.S. move were “profoundly alarming.” He expressed that, as a precedent, it might encourage states to legitimize their military actions under the same legal bases. Rothwell remarked,
“If the United States can do this, why can’t we also use this right of self-defence to disarm our enemies in this way?”
This dangerous precedent could further erode international legal norms prohibiting unilateral military intervention. Rothwell emphasized that the U.S. action did not meet the criteria for self-defense as outlined in the UN Charter, noting:
“The United States has not been subject to an Iranian armed attack, so that removes its right under the UN charter.”
Iran has a significant stockpile of uranium enriched up to approximately 60 percent. This level is well above what is needed for a robust domestic nuclear program, further complicating the backdrop. While the international community widely agrees that Iran should not attain nuclear capabilities, the U.S. action raises questions about the effectiveness of military solutions.
“We’ve seen an erosion of some of these international norms, especially when it comes to the use of force [in] pre-emptive self-defence.”
The Nuclear Threat Debate
Her Australian counterpart, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, made clear that her country supports U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. She quickly made it clear that Australia does not support war. Wong stated,
Australia has been promoting de-escalation and diplomacy, not engagement, demonstrating its preference for a careful response during a time of heightened tensions.
“The world has agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, so yes, we support action to prevent that, and that is what this is.”
The U.S. action itself would be significant enough to potentially realign relations in the Gulf region. It would likely trigger a new nuclear arms race. Perhaps the greatest concern is how other nations will perceive and respond to U.S. military interventions. The absence of a credible evidential basis for Trump’s allegations that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons would make any such diplomatic outreach more problematic.
Implications for Global Stability
Some critics have claimed that the op was beyond what is allowed under the prevailing international law matrix. Rothwell stated,
This skepticism should not be dismissed but rather recognized as a call for clarity and accountability in all international military engagements.
“I can’t really find a firm basis for this US action.”
This skepticism highlights the need for clarity and accountability in international military engagements.
