Thursday, March 5, 2026

NEO: Diplomacy Bombed: How the Israel-US Bombardment on Iran buried International Law in pursuing Regional Hegemony: 5th March,2026.

Security

Diplomacy Bombed: How the Israel-US Bombardment on Iran Buried International Law in Pursuing Regional Hegemony

Ricardo Martins, March 05, 2026

Launched in the midst of optimistic nuclear negotiations, the attack on Iran signals not deterrence but the collapse of diplomacy and the international legal order. What began as a “preventive strike” has become a regional conflagration in a widening conflict.

A Strike in the Midst of Diplomacy: Undermining Negotiation and International Norms

The recent attack by Israel on Iran, followed by the United States, marked an abrupt rupture in a positive diplomatic process. According to mediation efforts led by Oman, negotiations between Washington and Tehran over uranium enrichment were reportedly advancing. Most strikingly, Iran had agreed to place its enriched uranium in a third country, which is a major concession in nuclear diplomacy.

In such a context, the timing of the attack raises fundamental geopolitical questions. If diplomatic momentum was building, why escalate militarily? From my perspective, the strike appears less as a defensive necessity (at least from the side of the U.S.) and more as a strategic move by Israel to prevent a US–Iran accord that could have altered regional power balances. Diplomacy was once again sidelined in favour of force, a recurring pattern in Israeli and US politics.

The prospect of “World War III” remains speculative, but miscalculation risks are real

Under international law, the legitimacy of preventive military action is highly contested unless an imminent threat is demonstrable. The argument that Iran poses a direct and immediate threat to US territory remains far from credible. Rather, the justification appears anchored in Israel’s long-standing security doctrine of preemption: a doctrine historically invoked to justify strikes against perceived existential threats. Yet preemption without clear imminence blurs the line between defence and aggression, especially when undertaken without explicit authorisation from the United Nations Security Council.

The absence of congressional approval in Washington further complicates the domestic legal framework of the U.S. intervention. For many Americans, the question is not simply geopolitical but constitutional: does the executive branch have the authority to initiate another major war without legislative consent? Public protests across US cities suggest that support for escalation is far from unanimous.

Strategic Calculations: Israeli Regional Hegemony and Regime Change

Israel’s strategic rationale appears rooted in a broader regional vision. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently framed Iran as the principal threat to Israeli security, and since the 1990s, Netanyahu has announced that Iran is weeks or months from getting the atomic bomb. The objective, critics argue, extends beyond nuclear containment toward the weakening or the collapse of the Iranian regime itself. For Netanyahu, only an Iran abiding by the Abraham Accords is welcome.

Statements by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett suggesting that “Turkey is the new Iran” hint at a wider strategic outlook: neutralise emerging regional competitors sequentially to preserve Israeli military superiority. In this view, implementing chaos in Iran could produce a fragmented regional landscape in which Israel remains the dominant military power.

However, regime change operations rarely succeed through airstrikes alone. The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than precipitating collapse, appears to have consolidated nationalist sentiment. Martyrdom narratives are powerful in Iranian political culture; instead of weakening the regime, such actions may harden internal cohesion and accelerate succession mechanisms. History shows that external attacks often strengthen authoritarian systems rather than dismantle them. Moreover, civilian casualties, including reported strikes on hospitals and girls’ schools, deepen international scrutiny.

Europe’s Divided Response: Shameful Subordination

The European reaction has revealed fractures within the European Union. High Representative Kaja Kallas adopted language perceived as disproportionately critical of Iran while avoiding a clear condemnation of Israeli or American actions.

Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen publicly floated the idea of a “credible transition” in Iran, interpreted as a tacit endorsement of regime change, despite lacking a formal mandate to determine EU foreign policy.

In contrast, Spain adopted a markedly different stance. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez condemned the strikes as violations of international law and blocked US aircraft from using Spanish bases beyond agreed bilateral frameworks. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares reaffirmed that bases such as Naval Base Rota and Morón Air Base operate under strict sovereignty constraints.

German officials are discussing possible participation — potentially via coordination from Ramstein Air Base — highlight the EU’s strategic dilemma. Unlike support for Ukraine, there is no unified European strategy or clearly defined quid pro quo with Washington.

Europe may ultimately bear disproportionate consequences: surging energy prices, renewed refugee flows, and the strengthening of far-right movements capitalising on instability. Strategic alignment without autonomous policy planning risks undermining EU credibility as a normative power committed to multilateralism.

Regional Escalation and the Risk of a Wider War

The Middle East is already trapped. Iran has targeted all countries hosting US, British, and French bases in the region that have allowed the use of the airspace to bomb the Islamic Republic, transforming the confrontation into a broader regional conflict. The reported strike claims involving the USS Abraham Lincoln illustrate the rapid horizontal escalation potential.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE appear increasingly aligned with Washington and Tel Aviv, authorising defensive or retaliatory measures. Oil and gas markets have responded sharply, accentuating the global economic implications.

According to the analysis discussed on France Télévisions, the United Arab Emirates emerges as the country most exposed after Israel due to its strategic positioning and close security alignment with Washington. As a key logistical, financial, touristic, and military hub in the Gulf, hosting sensitive infrastructure and major Western interests, the UAE becomes a prime target for potential Iranian retaliation while remaining highly vulnerable to energy shocks and disruptions in regional trade and investments. Beyond the immediate security risks, the broader economic model of the Gulf monarchies — heavily dependent on stability, global investment flows, and uninterrupted energy exports — now faces an existential threat in the event of prolonged regional escalation.

Meanwhile, China faces a strategic calculation. As Iran’s key economic partner and energy supplier, Beijing has incentives to prevent regime collapse and regional chaos. Yet direct military involvement would risk confrontation with the US. China is therefore likely to provide diplomatic and information backing, as well as economic lifelines, rather than overt military support.

The prospect of “World War III” remains speculative, but miscalculation risks are real. When multiple regional and global powers are indirectly engaged, escalation ladders become difficult to control. Russia is aware of it and is acting cautiously.

Political Futures: Domestic Costs and Strategic Uncertainty

Domestically, President Donald Trump faces political risk. Initiating a new Middle Eastern war without broad public support or congressional authorisation may deepen polarisation. Anti-war protests across American cities suggest limited enthusiasm for prolonged engagement.

For Israel, victory is similarly elusive. Air superiority does not automatically translate into political transformation. For Iran, martyrdom and nationalist mobilisation may strengthen rather than weaken regime legitimacy.

The central geopolitical paradox remains: even if framed as preventive security, the operation may ultimately consolidate Iran’s internal unity, destabilise the Gulf monarchies and Europe economically, and entrench long-term regional volatility.

In sum, this crisis therefore extends beyond Iran, signalling a disturbing reality: international law appears increasingly reduced to rubble, its authority buried in the graveyards of modern warfare, a reality confirmed by the rhetoric of Pete Hegseth, who has stated that U.S. strategic decisions should not be subordinated to democracy, international legal norms, or multilateral constraints.

Ricardo Martins, Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

NEO: Operation Epic Fury: Juvenile Fantasies and Colonial Ambitions on Full Display: 6th March, 2026: Frida

Security

Operation Epic Fury: Juvenile Fantasies and Colonial Ambitions on Full Display

Simon Chege Ndiritu, March 06, 2026

The fact that the murder of 165 innocent schoolgirls in Minab was met with silence, while Iran’s response to US-Israeli aggression was met with choreographed condemnation, shows a skewed international order that breeds conflicts.

Operation Epic Fury: Juvenile Fantasies and Colonial Ambitions on Full Display

On Arrogant Purveyors of Massacres

On March 3, 2026, Iranians laid to rest 165 schoolgirls killed by US and Israel bombing in Minab City during the opening of Donald Trump’s Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026. The US-Israel also assassinated Iran’s supreme leader and military leaders, which was followed by Trump’s further meddling in Iranian internal affairs by calling on citizens to overthrow their government. Notably, both aggressors launched the bombing campaign as Washington and Tehran were scheduled to have another round of negotiations, showing a repeat of lawless behavior similar to what happened on June 13, 2025. Also noteworthy was that these negotiations entailed Washington presenting impossible conditions to Iran, on the one hand, while wondering why Iran was not capitulating in the face of US military deployment.

While the US and Israel termed their attack as “preemptive,” the Pentagon revealed to Congress that Iran was not preparing to attack, showing that Washington started a war of choice. This view was also confirmed by the US Secretary of State, who divulged that Washington bombed Iran because it wanted to shield Israel from retaliation the Jewish state would elicit after attacking Iran. With evidence showing that the ongoing war against Iran is an unprovoked war of choice, this article illuminates how the West’s juvenile fantasies and a skewed international system have enabled decades-long multispectral aggression on nations and also complicated the attainment of sustainable peace.

Between the date when the US-Israeli bombing killed 165 schoolgirls and staff in Minab city and when they were laid to rest on March 3, 2026, no Western European leader had condemned this blatant attack, showing their hidden approval

Trump’s Hollywood Thinking

Trump’s naming of the ongoing operation against Iran displays how juvenile and out of touch with reality the architects of this war are. Including the name “Fury” shows that the US wants to express wild anger toward a country that cannot attack its territory, displaying the immaturity of the intellect that fashioned this war. Similarly, the use of the term “epic,” which denotes narratives designed to enthrall audiences, is also in bad taste, as it shows that Washington planned to entertain its audience by killing innocent people and destroying infrastructure in Iran. Consequently, it is surreal that some Americans, Western Europeans, and their allies are entertained by or acquiesce to the animalistic attitude displayed in fashioning this war.

While giving credit where it is due, the intelligentsia in Washington has become honest, as it no longer conceals US colonial interests in terms such as “enduring freedom,” “restoring democracy,” and others that featured in the names of previous, yet equally senseless wars. The name “Operation Epic Fury” reflects low quality of thinking that could have well been generated by Trump’s budget marketers for one of his matches with Vince McMahon during his days in pro-wrestling. Unfortunately, this low quality of intellect is applied in managing relations between countries with real leaders, populations, and militaries, and results in tragic events such as bombing a school full of young girls to make for an “epic” view, while destroying Iran’s military, which cannot target the US territory, to demonstrate Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s “fury.” Even worse, the real reason for this war may be a diversion from the ongoing Epstein scandal, plus Washington’s colonial ambitions of plundering Iran’s resources and facilitating Israel’s hegemonic ambitions. Western Europe and other US allies are okay with this reality, and their stand endangers the peace of the rest of the world. The Kenyan president, among selected African leaders, some reported to have stashed proceeds of corruption in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also condemned Iran’s retaliatory bombing of the US military installations in the Gulf countries but had remained silent concerning the US-Israel bombing of a UN member. Therefore, a system emerges that accepts and sanitizes US actions at all costs, which precipitated the current war.

Allies Cheering Lawlessness for Narrow-Minded Ambitions

Between the date when the US-Israeli bombing killed 165 schoolgirls and staff in Minab city and when they were laid to rest on March 3, 2026 no Western European leader had condemned this blatant attack, showing their hidden approval. Meanwhile, the UK Prime Minister, Kier Starmer; French President, Emanuel Macron; and German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, condemned Iran’s retaliation, some threatening to join the US or avail their resources for the US to intensify its attacks, euphemized as defending Israel. It seems the US, Israel, and their allies expected Iran to surrender to the West’s parochial interests of overthrowing the Iranian government to balkanize and loot the country’s resources. In this case, the US is acting like a small-town bully who has recruited the majority to shout at his victims, level endless accusations against them, and hence convince them to accept Washington’s bullying to earn acceptance as “democratic” or “free markets,” among others. This mentality is seen in Western Europe’s condemnation of Iran’s retaliation as indiscriminate and destabilizing. Borrowing from the analogy of bully-justifying hecklers seen above, the US-Israeli murder of Iranian civilians is promoted by Western Europeans as “precise,” “preemptive,” or “promoting stability.” This Jarring explanation has been used by the West to promote a world order that has dehumanized people in the rest of the world for centuries.

The West has created labels and policies for colonizing, sidelining, or exploiting other groups, including Africans, Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians, Russians, and Chinese. Those targeted are dehumanized and cast in a way suggesting they do not deserve rights to their lives and resources, as the genocide in Gaza and the massacre in Minab show. This same attitude has driven 47 years of inhumane sanctions against Iran, which were targeted at collapsing the government to plunder its energy resources for Western neocolonial ambitions. Sadly, many other countries have supported or allowed these sanctions, which have curtailed targeted countries’ right to development. Studies have shown that development makes societies less likely to go to war as people prefer enjoying opportunities provided by prosperity. It can be argued that America’s sanctions have made the Iranian society willing to fight, especially against Washington, which is desirable.

Prolonged Conflict as the Oppressed Fight Back

An openly biased international system condemning some nations to underdevelopment and constant threats of war has made countries such as Iran and Russia skeptical of Western diplomatic overtures. These countries have chosen to use military means after learning that the West does not recognize their rights and interests, but prefers to recruit vassals that play a cacophony to browbeat appointed adversaries to give up their rights. However, these civilizational nations have cultivated inner strength and learned to rely on themselves to fight the West at all costs while ignoring its vassals. This reality means that Iran and Russia will hold out for as long as they can. Sustainable peace will only be achieved if the West learns to respect the rights of all other peoples or if it is defeated and denied the ability to enforce a tiered and discriminatory international system.

Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

NEO: "Greater Israel" and Regional Turbulence: Strategic Calculation or Strategic Miscalation: 5th March, 2026

Politics

“Greater Israel” and Regional Turbulence: Strategic Calculation or Strategic Miscalculation?

Jeffrey Silverman, March 05, 2026

Mike Huckabee’s statements in his interview with Tucker Carlson brought into focus what critics describe as the hidden ideological foundation of Washington and Tel Aviv’s current Middle East strategy. At the center of attention is not only the military operation against Iran, launched on February 28, 2026, but also its symbolic context: the attack coincided with the Jewish holiday of Purim, adding another layer of religious and political resonance to the events.

“Greater Israel” and Regional Turbulence: Strategic Calculation or Strategic Miscalculation?

This war has expanded into something greater, into a Persian-Arab War, starting on the Jewish holiday of Purim, even Chabad, the Jewish educational organization, is in their holiday propaganda. Lebanon is already under attack, both air attacks and the moving of Israeli ground troops into southern districts of the country.

Take it all at face value; it is surely more than coincidence for some Jews that the military operation was launched on the day that the Jewish people recite the Torah’s commandment to remember Amalek, the Jews’ principal foe during their early years as a people, which is read on the Shabbat preceding the holiday of Purim.

The headline in some Jewish publications is self-revealing: “On Purim Eve, Iran’s Architect of Terror is Dead: In joint US-Israel operation, Iranian top command has been eliminated.” Purim started Monday night, March 2, and ran until Tuesday, March 3.

Israel has now expanded operations into Lebanon, with ground forces advancing into southern areas and conducting airstrikes on Beirut (including its southern suburbs like Dahiyeh), targeting Hezbollah positions, weapons storage, and command centers

And let’s not forget Huckabee’s earlier interview, which exposes much, perhaps too much, about America’s less than balanced relationship with Israel. He acts as if he has a direct line with God and knows something that the rest of us are not privy to. And that is just the beginning, as for the rhetorical subterfuge and downright lies that have become the standard for US domestic and foreign policy—one only has to listen to the double-speak of Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance to get the impression of a game of “good cop” vs. “bad cop” when it comes to the Trump Administration.

Did you see Trump’s SOTU address?

It is REALLY a clown show from all parties. Read about it first, and then listen to the comedians having an already prepared script, as the best fiction writers could not come up with such rhetoric and expect people to buy it. Finally, listen to it yourself—then really think about what is happening at home and on the international stage!

It is jaw-dropping to believe that some people can still take Trump and his US Secretaries of State, War, and Ambassadors, especially the one to Israel, seriously, especially after the SOTU address, Huckabee’s disastrous interview, and the press conferences given by Hesgith and Rubio about “Operation Epic Fury,” which is already being lampooned as “Operation Epstein’s Fury” on social media.

President Donald Trump used the State of the Union (STOU) to argue that the country is “winning” under his leadership, even as his approval ratings crash and burn. He focused on jobs, manufacturing, and an economy he says is stronger than many Americans believe, according to recent questionable opinion poll results, which indicate he has a ruinously high disapproval rating across a number of polls.

Trump’s most ominous statement, though, was about his negotiations with Iran, where he blatantly lied, saying:

“We are in negotiations with ’em. They want to make a deal. But we haven’t heard those secret words: “We will never have a nuclear weapon.””

This despite the Iranian government’s repeated public and private statements that they have no desire to develop nuclear weapons, such as the recent statement by the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, said:

“Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people,”

Then we have the reprehensible Mike Huckabee, US Ambassador to Israel, who said of the plan for GREATER Israel, which we all know from actions on the ground, (Syria, Lebanon, ongoing genocide, and plans to take all of Palestine), that “it would be fine if it took it all.” Needless to say, such a blunt statement has caused outrage amongst Middle Eastern countries and put at severe risk US moves to normalize relations between the Jewish state and its neighbors.

Huckabee is a known evangelical Christian Zionist and staunch supporter of Israel, RIGHT OR WRONG? With a long history of opposing a two-state solution and advocating for Israeli sovereignty in disputed territories. Some argue that he acts more as the Israeli ambassador to the US than in the role that he is actually supposed to serve.

When asked by Tucker Carlson about biblical promises (Genesis 15) regarding the Land of Israel (referenced as the land from the Nile to the Euphrates), Huckabee stated, strongly supporting what he sees as Israel’s right to take other countries lands. Huckabee made a series of wild claims about Greater Israel, US arms funding, the use of language to dismiss the use of the terms “Gaza” and “the West Bank,” and even confirmed how much of that money given to Israel goes right back to the US to buy ammunition. He falsely claimed that Palestinians were using children as human shields and declared that it was right for Israel to kill Palestinian children.

Dark Cloud with Silver Lining

Such hubris and narrow-minded rhetoric is a dark cloud with a silver lining, bringing together a vast cross section of Islamic society. This phrasing, “take it all,” has been a rallying cry. The response was swift and coordinated.

A joint statement issued shortly after the interview’s release—signed by the foreign ministries of at least 14 nations (including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan)—along with the League of Arab States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, described the comments as “dangerous and inflammatory.”

The statement characterized them as a “flagrant violation” of international law, the UN Charter, and norms of diplomacy, while asserting that they threatened regional security and stability.

Epic Fury

All this has come to a head with the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran, which commenced on Saturday, 28^th February, 2026, with missile strikes from both naval and air assets, including decapitation strikes, one of which killed the Iranian spiritual and political leader, Ayatollah Ali Kahmeini, along with several members of his family, along with a number of senior military and political leaders, as they met to discuss the latest proposals from the negotiations with the US.

Unlike the 12-day war in 2025, where there was a considerable delay in the Iranian response, this time the Iranian military responded in less than 15 minutes, stunning the US and Israeli military, who had expected a much longer delay in which they could run rampant.

The Iranians also stunned the Americans by keeping their promise to hit any base that the US occupied in the region, as well as economic and military targets in countries that hosted US bases, such as Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

The messages coming out of the US administration are contradictory, with Trump constantly changing his self-proclaimed timeline from an initial “5 days” to the current “several weeks” and jumping between the ideas of “regime change” or “stopping the missile/(nonexistent) nuclear bomb program,” while “War Bro” (Secretary of War) Pete Hesgeth stunningly claimed, “We didn’t start this war,” in a press conference updating the public on the operation. Rubio, on the other hand, admitted that the decision was made to strike Iran first, which was confirmed by Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview with John Hannity, where the genocidal Bibi gloated about the strikes.

New Front Opens in Lebanon

The situation in the Middle East is now escalating rapidly amid the ongoing U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran. Israel has now expanded operations into Lebanon, with ground forces advancing into southern areas and conducting airstrikes on Beirut (including its southern suburbs like Dahiyeh), targeting Hezbollah positions, weapons storage, and command centers. This follows Hezbollah’s recent missile and drone attacks on northern Israel, which appear to be in retaliation for broader regional developments involving Iran.

Reports indicate Israeli troops are seizing strategic locations in southern Lebanon as a “forward defense” measure, with evacuation orders issued for dozens of Lebanese villages. Airstrikes have hit Beirut for consecutive days, causing significant damage, civilian casualties (at least dozens reported killed and injured), and mass displacement. Hezbollah has described this as Israel pushing for “open war,” signaling the end of restraint after a prior ceasefire.

Meanwhile, in Bahrain, the majority Shiite population is now rioting in what appears to be open revolt, with Saudi troops being sent in to try and restore order. Given the public sympathies in most Arab states are firmly with Iran, this could rapidly spread.

Even worse, Trump has now refused to rule out the deployment of ground troops, as he flounders trying to pull a win out of a rapidly deteriorating situation.

Some evangelical Christians, particularly those who interpret current events through biblical prophecy (e.g., linking Middle East conflicts to end-times scenarios in Ezekiel or other texts), are speculating that these developments could signal the imminent return of the Messiah (often referred to as the Second Coming) and the Great Rapture.

Discussions in certain online communities and prophecy-focused sites tie 2026 to potential fulfillment of such prophecies, though mainstream Christian theology generally cautions against setting specific dates or interpretation of such prophecies. Worst of all, it is coming to light that US commanders briefed troops that the Iran war was part of God’s plan to usher in the End Times and bring about Jesus Christ’s second coming. From a traditional Christian perspective, this is a heresy of the first order.

Combined with the Jihad ordered by religious leaders in retaliation for the Ayatollah’s death, the scene is set for a disaster of Biblical proportions.

Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

CounterPunch.org: How it became legal to attack Iran. 5th March, 2026.

March 5, 2026

How it became Legal to Attack Iran

Binoy Kampmark

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

The allies of the United States have gone native, feral even, in the jungle of international relations planted by President Donald J. Trump. While we keep hearing about how awful Russia’s war against Ukraine is, with its shattering of international law and its dismissiveness of the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Israeli-US attack on Iran has been given the seal of approval by America’s client states and supporters. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada, for instance, were clear in endorsing a UN General Assembly resolution on February 24 supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The provision explicitly “prohibits the threat or use of force”, calling on Member states “to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.” Nothing of the sort has been seen regarding the illegal assault on Iran that began on February 28.

Most pitiful in the repudiation of the Charter by US allies are the stances of the supposed “middle powers”, a term as flattering as middle management. These middling types – Australia and Canada stand out here – have been keen to wish themselves into abject irrelevance on the issue of international law. This is despite calls from the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that like-minded powers should club together to rectify the collapse of the rules-based international order so cherished under the Pax Americana. At his speech delivered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Carney extolled the ideas of being principled and pragmatic which would include valuing “sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter”. Nothing of this was evident in the joint February 28 statement from Carney and his Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

All craven positions taken by states have slight differences, and the Australian one can be measured by the position that not taking part in the strikes does not mean having to consider their legal nature. “Obviously,” said Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong on March 1, “Australia did not participate in these strikes.” But it supported “action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

The United Kingdom has gone one better by becoming entirely revisionist. In a March 1 statement, the government of Sir Keir Starmer revealed why the UK would be committing to the conflict against Tehran. This was not about Iran being pre-emptively and unlawfully attacked in the first place but Iran daring to defend itself by attacking regional powers hosting US military bases and personnel. Britain would therefore be mounting, at the insistence of Washington, a “defensive action” by targeting “missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes on regional allies.” It would also act “in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support.” Any propaganda minister in the annals of history would have been proud of that fatuous formulation.

The propaganda of justification focuses on positions that, were they to become a template, could be applied to any number of regimes in the world. Do they crush and violate the human rights of their subjects, restrict lawful assembly, and fire on protestors? Are they theocracies, or governed by martial law, or traditional police states? Do they destabilise their region with needless meddling, posing “imminent” threats? Along the way, forget the limits on the use of force as stated in the UN Charter: that the territorial integrity of all states should be respected, and that any permission for the use of force should take place via the UN Security Council or be undertaken in cases of self-defence.

With sheer abandon, then, we can justify bumping off the leaders, the commanders, and the top officials – but be selective which theocracies, autocratic thugs and shifty types we want to keep company with. And the one to be selective here is Trump, who has personalised international relations with such dramatic effect as to terrify his allies into complicity and obedience. To condemn the actions against Iran as illegal could lead to frosty dismissal, the imposition of crushing sanctions or tariffs, exclusion from intelligence sharing, the shutting off from cooperative ventures. Be good to Donald, or he will bite. Best be bad to everybody he dislikes.

Important in the apologias for attacking Iran has been the anecdotal gauging of attitudes from the Iranian diaspora to be found in Canada, the US, Australia and Europe. Celebratory gestures of flag waving and ghoulish revelling in the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, albeit understandable, have also been used to rationalise the war. The Iranian security apparatus had been brutal in putting down protests by brave citizens. We can forget what follows: greater instability and fractiousness within the borders of that state. The creation of more regional problems. The potential for even greater fanaticism and resolve.

In terms of immediate international consequences, protests against the killing of Khamanei in other Islamic states have taken place, in some cases with brutal results. In Pakistan, security forces have used lethal force, leaving 10 dead in Karachi, eight in Skardu and two in Islamabad. Yet little mention in the corridors of Western power is made about these fallen, presumably because they were not the right or relevant sort.

Both the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led attacks on Libya in 2011 offer disturbing lessons, none of which interest the ahistorical outlaws of the Trump Jungle. The crime of international aggression against Iraq demonstrated the importance of lies and inflated threats – in that case deployable Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found – along with the dismal failure of occupation and nation building. The Libyan example is seminal given the current aerial nature of the Israeli-US campaign against Iran.

In Libya, a NATO-led coalition intervened in the civil war ostensibly to protect civilians against the security forces of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi. “When crisis erupted in Libya,” remarked Sir John Sawers, former Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service, in February 2015, “we didn’t feel it right to sit by as Gaddafi crushed decent Libyans demanding an end to dictatorship.” But Britain and its partners “didn’t want to get embroiled in Libya’s problems by sending in ground forces.”

Initially framed as an operation to protect civilians, the air campaign became one of support for anti-government militias, leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow and lynch-mob murder. The country duly fractured between rival fundamentalist groups and remains divided to this day. It also became a safe-haven for al-Qaeda and Islamic State forces to conduct operations against the country’s neighbours. “Libya,” recalled Sawers, “had no institutions. Who or what would take over? The answer? Those with the weapons. Result? Growing chaos, exploited by fanatics.” The lessons for the Israeli-US campaign are all too startlingly relevant.

The grotesque cowardice of various representatives, including the clueless fawning by Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte, the unpardonable conduct of the European Commission’s top diplomats Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and most of the EU governments, has also revealed their feral conversion to a doctrine of force that does away with softening diplomacy and the tenets of international law. It’s almost an embarrassment to read the EU statement on avoiding escalation when the powers escalating the matter were Israel and the US while still insisting that diplomacy would have a role. The Iranians were engaged in diplomacy and were reassured that more talks would follow. This was a charade, a confidence trick that will impair the credibility of the West, or Global North, in terms of its conduct of relations when it comes to addressing threats, actual or perceived. All is permissible in the Trump Jungle.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com