![US President Donald Trump (right) and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet in the Oval Office of the White House, on April 7, 2025.]()
The attack on Iran is the
latest in a series of “pre-emptive” military operations undertaken by
Israel, shielded from accountability for its actions by the US and other
Western powers. © AP file photo
On October 12, 2023, as Israel and its allies reeled from the carnage wrought just days earlier
by Hamas militants in southern Israel, the then Pentagon chief was
asked whether Washington would place any conditions on its hugely
expanded security assistance to its Middle East ally.
Lloyd Austin’s answer to reporters
was a straightforward “no”, based on the assumption that Israel’s
military would “do the right things” in its war against the
Tehran-backed militia.
Twenty months on, Israel has flattened Gaza, bombed swathes of Lebanon, seized further territory in Syria, and now launched a direct attack on Iran as it pursues what it describes as an “existential” fight against the Islamic Republic and its allies in the region.
Throughout
the fighting, its ultra-nationalist leaders have dismissed the mounting
evidence of war crimes committed in Gaza, which led the International
Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024.
Senior
cabinet members have openly advocated the forced removal of Gaza’s
population, which would amount to a genocidal crime, and the
dismemberment of Syria. Netanyahu himself has discussed the possibility
of assassinating Iran’s head of state and precipitating “regime change” in the Islamic Republic in interviews with US media.
Ironically,
such rhetoric brings Israel closer in line with the inflammatory
bluster typical of its arch-foe Iran – with the important difference
that Israel does possess nuclear weapons and a military capable of backing up its increasingly provocative statements.
The
extraordinary escalation is a “natural consequence of the impunity that
has prevailed in the region over the past two years", says H. A.
Hellyer, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute
for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) in London.
“The fact
that Israel has faced no consequence for repeatedly infringing
international law sends a very clear signal: that if it chooses to do
more, it can,” he explains. “And it can count on the most powerful
actors in the international community simply not doing very much or
actually empowering and emboldening it.”
Read more‘It's the civilians who will pay the price’: Iranians prepare for the worst after Israeli strikes
The
most immediate consequence of Israeli impunity in the Middle East is
the immense suffering inflicted on civilian populations, nowhere more so
than in Gaza, where Israel’s ongoing military campaign has killed more
55,000 people, according to local health officials, and rendered the
narrow strip of land largely uninhabitable.
Another consequence, with more far-reaching implications, is the further erosion of the rules-based order in place since World War II, says Karim Emile Bitar, a Middle East expert at Beirut’s Saint-Joseph University and visiting professor at Sciences-Po Paris.
“Recent
events have driven the final nail into the coffin of international law
and of what has been referred to as the liberal international order,” he
says. “The message to the world is that if might is on your side, you
can break all the rules, trample on international law and all the
standards that have been in place since 1945, and there will be
absolutely no accountability.”
‘A new Middle East’
Netanyahu
has described Israel’s actions as ushering in a “new Middle East”, a
phrase that has haunted the region at least since the 2003 Iraq War,
when the US and its allies sought to remodel it – with catastrophic
consequences.
“There has been a lot of jubilation (among
critics of Iran), imagining that these are the ‘birth pangs’ of some
sort of new Middle East. On the contrary, this is a spiral of violence,
fostered by an environment of impunity that allows for vigilante action
to take place without repercussions,” says Hellyer.
“Nobody
needs to be a fan of the Iranian regime, or Hezbollah or Hamas, to see
that this activity is incredibly destabilising for regional order and
security,” he adds. “It also has massive repercussions for international
order and international security, because it means that there isn't a
rules-based
Bitar notes that few people in the Sunni Arab world will be
“shedding a tear” for the Iranian regime – “and for good reason, given
the disruption and suffering caused by Tehran’s regional proxies".
However,
he adds, “they are also alarmed by an increasingly unbridled Israel,
which – unlike Iran – has the means to wipe out entire cities, and whose
senior ministers now openly advocate ethnic cleansing in Gaza".
An
immediate consequence is likely to be a regional arms race to try to
narrow the gap with Israel. In Iran’s case, analysts point to the
likelihood of a fresh push to go nuclear, thereby achieving the exact opposite of the stated goal of Israel’s military operation.
“Israel's
attack is making Iran feel very vulnerable. Their conventional
deterrence has failed, and I think we’re going to see more and more
calls from within the country to pursue nuclear weapons,” says Daryl
Kimball of the US-based Arms Control Association, noting that contrary
to Israeli claims, Western intelligence assessments have so far concluded that Tehran is not currently pushing to militarise its nuclear programme.
Kimball
says there are already voices in Iran calling for the country to
withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits
states that don’t have nuclear weapons from pursuing them.
“Bombing
(Iran) simply makes sure they will try a hundred times more because
they will assess there is no rules-based order, there is simply the
threat of force and mutually assured destruction,” adds Hellyer.
‘Anticipatory’ self-defence
The
phrase “birth pangs of a new Middle East” was famously used by former
US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice to refer to the 2006
Israel-Hezbollah war, one of many conflicts with roots in the regional
upheaval caused by the US invasion of Iraq.
“Back then, there
was at least a stated aim to promote democracy and human rights in the
region, even if it was largely a smokescreen,” says Bitar. “Now there is
no such pretence. We’re back to Bismarckian power politics, in which
might precedes right, and a world governed by nationalist authoritarian
leaders in the mould of Putin and Trump.”
In the present
climate, he adds, “the dwindling number of people who talk about respect
for international law are regarded as hopeless idealists disconnected
from reality".
While Israel’s attack on Iran has drawn
condemnation around the world, the messaging from Western leaders has
been far more mixed, with talk of Israel’s “right to defend itself”
often taking precedence over references to international law.
Hours after Israel launched the first wave of attacks, French President Emmanuel Macron,
whose planned summit on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict was scuttled by the outbreak of war, put the blame squarely on
Iran and said France stood ready to defend Israel if necessary.
Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz
went a step further, arguing that Israel was “doing the dirty job for
all of us” by taking on in the Iranian regime – prompting outcry in a
country where the emphasis is normally on de-escalation.
Read moreWhat does Israel really want in Iran?
In an op-ed published by the Guardian,
Sydney-based international law professor Ben Saul argued that support
for Israel’s “right to self-defence" had no legal grounding in the
present conflict and set a dangerous precedent.
He described
Israel’s attack on Iran as “part of a pattern of unlawful ‘anticipatory’
violence against other countries”, along with its recent destruction of
Syrian military bases and equipment, despite “the absence of any attack
by the new Syrian authorities on Israel”.
“The risk of abuse of
‘anticipatory’ self-defence is simply too great, and too dangerous, for
the world to tolerate,” Saul wrote, noting that Russia claimed to invade Ukraine
“in part because it speculatively feared NATO expansion”. He added:
“Many countries have hostile relations with other countries. Allowing
each country to unilaterally decide when they wish to degrade another
country’s military, even when they have not been attacked, is a recipe
for global chaos – and for the unjustified deaths of many innocent
people.”
‘One pillar of the post-war order is attacking another’
In
an interview with Middle East Eye, Sir Richard Dalton, a former British
ambassador to Tehran, noted that past US administrations had refused to
countenance a large-scale Israeli attack on Iran, but that Netanyahu
“has obtained more leverage over the US (since Donald Trump’s return to
power) and Israel is more of a law unto itself”.
Dalton said
other Western countries had been “incredibly limp in not holding Israel
to account” for its conduct over the past 20 months, a stance he
attributed in part to their growing disregard for international law.
“They
don’t look at the legal issue. They won’t look at the circumstances in
international law when a pre-emptive strike against a potential enemy is
lawful and when it is not,” he said. “Israel’s strike was an illegal
aggression. But we’re prepared to talk frankly in those terms about
Russia but not about Israel.”
To display this content from YouTube, you must enable advertisement tracking and audience measurement.
While Western powers have failed to rein in the violence, the
institutions they helped found decades ago to uphold the rules-based
order have not sat idle.
Since the start of the Gaza war, both the ICC and the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) have moved with urgency, the latter issuing successive rulings
last year to warn of the risk of genocide in Gaza and order an end to
Israel’s military operations in the south of the enclave. Neither court,
however, has the capacity to enforce international law if world powers
refuse to comply.
When the ICC issued its arrest warrant for Netanyahu, former US president Joe Biden
described the move as “outrageous”. His successor at the White House
has gone a step further, issuing an executive order in January to
authorise sanctions on the court over its “illegitimate” actions against
the US and its “close ally Israel”.
The Trump administration
has also withdrawn the US from several UN bodies and slashed the
organisation’s funding, creating a situation in which “one pillar of the
post-war order is attacking another”, according to Brian Brivati,
visiting professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston
University.
“The leading founder of the UN is now undermining
the institution from within, wielding its security council veto to block
action while simultaneously starving the organisation of resources,”
Brivati wrote on The Conversation earlier this week.
“The
combination of a powerful state acting with impunity and a superpower
disabling the mechanisms of accountability marks a global inflection
point,” he added. “Other global powers, including Russia and China, are
taking this opportunity to move beyond the Western rules-based system.”
The
breakdown of the system could have catastrophic consequences for global
stability, warns RUSI’s Hellyer, pointing to the need for international
rules and co-operation to tackle a host of global challenges.
“There
will always be new crises and conflicts, not least of which dealing
with the climate emergency,” he says. “And we need international law and
the rules-based order to at least mitigate their consequences.”