“Israel’s warmongering has demonstrated both the inability of the West to rein in their strategic partner and an unwillingness to hold the state and its leadership to account. The consequences for millions of Iranians could be dire.”
By Cameron Griffiths
As the most recent conflict between Israel and Iran continues, world leaders have called for de-escalation. Yet, decades of geopolitical tension and inconsistencies in the application of international law make that goal elusive. Even more so given Western leaders refuse to address the key question: which “rogue” state is truly undermining international law?
Keir Starmer has joined a host of Western leaders in reiterating Israel’s justification for recent attacks, warning Iran of potential consequences. Starmer asserted “We absolutely recognise Israel’s right to self-defence” echoing Israel’s unfounded contention the strikes constitute pre-emptive self-defence as a response to an immediate threat of Iranian nuclearization.
Simultaneously, media coverage across the West has offered a fragmented timeline of events and frequent reference to international law and global security. David Lammy’s statement to Parliament similarly framed Israel’s unprovoked and illegal strikes on Iran as a defensive security measure:
“We have always supported Israeli security – that’s why Britain has sought to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through extensive diplomacy”
Israel has claimed its strikes are aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, citing the recent IAEA criticism of Tehran’s issues of compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While Iran has long internally debated the need for a nuclear deterrent, there is no conclusive evidence it has pursued a nuclear warhead. In recent days, US intelligence has confirmed there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. With known national security “hawk” and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard confirming, “The IC (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003”.
Three major issues complicate the framing of Iran’s actions as illegal under international law.
First, Iran’s NPT compliance issues largely concern safeguards. The IAEA has repeatedly acknowledged Iran’s cooperation, particularly after the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in 2018. Since then, sanctions, targeted assassinations, and stalled diplomacy have shifted Iran’s threat perceptions.
Second, while Iran has tested NPT boundaries since 2001, Israel has never signed the treaty and maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity. Western powers, particularly the U.S., UK and France, have also failed in their obligations under the NPT to support the development of civilian nuclear technologies in Iran.
Third, the previously agreed JCPoA, which Israel declared a deep betrayal, showed Iranian compliance with some of the most intensive monitoring mechanisms ever agreed by any country. That deal respected Iran’s right to enrichment, a long-standing demand. The Biden administration’s attempts to link limits on Iran’s Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile development as a condition of future agreement where a known non-starter.
Recent statements by Western leaders have largely accepted Israel’s justification for strikes. Yet, the IAEA reported over six months ago that Iran’s breakout time (the period needed to weaponise the uranium stockpile) was effectively zero. If Israel’s concern was truly about weaponisation, military action would have occurred then, not as it has when international scrutiny of Israel’s genocide in Gaza is finally gaining some momentum.
Iran’s posture reflects a long-standing distrust of international institutions. During the Iran-Iraq War, the international community conveniently failed to condemn Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons on civilians. Later, despite cooperation with US intelligence in Afghanistan, and attempts at rapprochement through Mohammed Khatami’s “Dialogue of Civilizations”, Iran was labelled a part of the “Axis of Evil” publicly while privately the Bush administration made plans for a mass ground invasion to take place after their presumed success in Iraq.
After decades of isolation and demonisation, Tehran views international law as a political tool wielded by powerful states. It’s pursuit of a “near-nuclear” status, remaining just short of weaponisation, mirrors strategies used by other states who similarly seek to press up against the legal red lines without crossing them.
Dissimilarly, Israel remains outside the NPT, rejects the same IAEA inspections it demands Iran submit themselves to, and has dismissed the International Criminal Courts’ investigation into genocide as antisemitic. Its refusal to cooperate with the International Court of Justice, the foundational court which upholds international law, further contributes to this double standard.
Israel’s warmongering has demonstrated both the inability of the West to rein in their strategic partner and an unwillingness to hold the state and its leadership to account. The consequences for millions of Iranians could be dire, only the beginning of a violent regional rupture and wider global insecurity.
- Cameron Griffiths is an International Relations Postgraduate Researcher at UEA, currently writing a PhD thesis on the British foreign policy response to the Iranian Revolution.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
