Israel-Iran: A Colonial War

Special Insight by Dr Anicée Van Engeland, Associate Professor of International Security & Law at Cranfield University, UK

Iran-Israel

As the United Kingdom and the USA are pondering the legality of an involvement in the Israel-Iran war, one can only but question how the wider public will perceive such involvement. Lawyers are already indicating that such engagement is likely to be illegal as the war lacks clear legal basis.

From a governance perspective, the support to Ukraine follows a logic of defending Europe and liberal values; the wars waged in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran have pushed the limits of international law and have been unpopular. Besides, images flowing from Iran - in spite of the authorities seeking to control the internet - show that the foundations of international humanitarian law and human rights are been undermined: to reach their targets, the Israeli military has killed civilians, including around 20 children. This is reminiscent of Jamie Shea, former NATO spokesman, casually referring to “collateral damages” in 1999 following strikes in former Yugoslavia. Yet, today, the loss of civilian lives seems to be acceptable and accepted. The theory and the practice have since developed in a way that – in my view - privileges the principle of military necessity at the expenses of the principle of discrimination, negating the role of human rights law in the battlefield in relation to the right to life. This became obvious with the assassination of General Soleimani.

Israel and the United State have long promoted an agenda of customary law creatures that would push Article 51 of the United Nations Charter on self-defence beyond its remit. For example, Israel has long promoted the so-called argument of membership per which everyone in Gaza was affiliated to the Hamas. It is likely such views provided a platform to the genocide in Gaza. The concept of pre-emptive self-defence is now peaking, and a colleague has spoken of a “parody of international law”. Something more sinister is at work: in the name of self-defence, the Israeli authorities, supported by other nations, are destroying our post-World War II values through a systemic targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Beyond the discussion on self-defence lies a darker motive: as the Israeli government claims to support regime change, it appears that Article 51 is used to colonial end. Listening to the narratives of governments violating international law, from Russia to Iran, indicates how the politicisation of international law have enabled new imperial endeavours. In the case at hand,  and as per Wallerstein theory on the core and the periphery, Iran is reminded of its place in the international order: the authorities dared to challenge the established order by befriending Russia and China and by leading their own imperial conquests (bleeding into Iraq, Yemen, Syria and others).Iran has to be reminded of its periphery nature, which is why the accession to nuclear power is impossible. Israel is not only using pre-emptive self-defence to kill the competition; it also wishes to establish itself as the core, suffocating any pluralism in the region, including nuclear pluralism. To do so, the Israeli authorities use the narrative of balancing security and human rights: human lives need to be lost for security to be established. With such re-ordering of the pyramid of human rights’ needs, it is the very core of our social contract - modelled by Rousseau for communities and later adopted by nation-states for the post Word War II world - that is challenged: security wins it all, at all costs. International law then becomes a mean rather than an end.

Finally, the claim that the Iranian regime must be overthrown suddenly appears like a magic argument that would justify the killings of Iranian civilians. The operation called Rising Lion is, however, very disturbing: the lion is the emblem of the pre-Islamic regime, that of the Shah. The Israeli authorities appear to seek to change an oppressive regime with one that has a long history of human rights’ violations and lack of economic development. Regime change is very complex and can only function if a viable and legitimate alternative is found. The right to self-determination demand that an organic solution is found.

The debate is consequently not solely about the legality of the strikes: it is about the world order and how international law is being used to justify a new era of colonialism.