For all of the stupid brinkmanship that led to War World 2 and other conflicts in the past, at least the old fashioned thing of declaring wars and then fighting them had a clarity which the world decided to walk away from in the second part of the 20th century. Hence we now have to "law of armed conflict" instead of the "law of war", and countries like the US and Israel deciding that going for international assassination is the way to get countries to chance course.
I mean, if this is the standard now, just how upset should MAGA Americans be if an Iranian secret agent did manage to kill Trump? Their beloved leader, after all, partook in assassination without giving any clear warning, so seems to me the moral upset should be quite diluted.
Yet, it's also true that Iran has been such an international trouble maker for so many decades that we are now forced to watch somewhat embarrassing endorsements of Trump's actions by Western leaders who, surely, in private, are likely to be regretting having to going along with this. Albanese has got the burden of AUKUS around his neck, too, giving him all the more motive not to upset the apple cart of US co-operation to get new submarines.
A couple of academics at the not-so-illustrious University of the Sunshine Coast are right, though:
We should be dismayed by the worrying acceptance of increased brazen illegality by Western leaders, including our own prime minister. Anthony Albanese has supported the strikes as “acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon”. This places Australia, once again, in open contradiction with basic principles of liberal international order.
They earlier wrote:
Trump said the attacks were intended to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and bring about regime change. Trump urged Iranians to “take over your government”, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the goal was to “remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran”.
Forcible regime change violates the foundational principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention under the UN Charter.
The strikes targeted Iran’s supreme leader, president, and military chief of staff, as well as military infrastructure. Deliberately targeting heads of state also crosses a threshold that distinguishes military operations from acts of aggression.
Attacking heads of state is illegal under New York Convention, for obvious reasons of stability. With the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the power vacuum will only increase the hardship on the ground for Iranians.
Now, who knows: it may be that everything will go relatively well, and we soon see the rapid, relatively bloodless, end of a regime that only Putin is likely to think is a pity to see gone.
But really, does that seem likely given the history of the region in the last 70 odd years? I doubt it.
Update: there is a good summary at Axios about the lead up to this - although you have to subscribe to a newsletter to get to it.
What's clear is that the attack only makes sense if Trump's previous attack on nuclear facilities was not the success he claimed:
Behind the scenes: Before and during the talks, U.S. officials said intelligence made clear Iran was already rebuilding the nuclear facilities that Trump claimed were "obliterated" in Operation Midnight Hammer last June.
- When Kushner and Witkoff asked for a concrete proposal, the Iranians produced a seven-page document outlining enrichment needs they claimed were for civilian purposes.
- Trump's team checked the numbers with the UN's nuclear watchdog. "This would result in enrichment capability roughly five times more than laid out in the [2015 nuclear deal]," one official said.
Officials also said Iran had been secretly stockpiling enriched material at the Tehran Research Reactor under the guise of medical research.
- "Never once did they use any of the fissionable material there to make even a single medicine," one official said. "It was all designed to deceive."
Reality check: This account is based largely on statements by U.S. and allied officials in the aftermath of the strikes, and could not immediately be verified by independent sources.
It's also clear that he is utterly in Netanyahu's pocket. (Trump and his family also being financially tied to Arab money is another factor.)
