Going native in the Trump jungle: how it became legal to attack Iran

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.