Skip to main content

The illegality of military attacks on Iran

One reads or hears little about the illegality of the military attacks on Iran under international law. Here are excerpts from what one organization that dares to address that subject has published. It deserves wider circulation.

The Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF) published on June 19 a blog explaining how Israel’s attacks against Iran constitute unlawful military aggression, made possible only by the impunity it has so far received from Western states for the attacks it has launched throughout the Middle East. 

Israel’s bombing of nuclear installations, Iranian officials and civilian buildings in Iran violates international law. At the time of writing, Israeli airstrikes have targeted hospitals, markets, water and fuel infrastructure, killing 406 Iranians, more than 90 per cent of them civilians. 

Israel claims that it launched these attacks to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Israel’s attacks were timed to wreck the negotiations ongoing between Iran and the United States to reach a new deal. Israel’s attacks on Iran are not about uranium enrichment but about “regime change” in Iran and “regional dominance” of Israel. 

In a further statement, WILPF called on all states to: 
 • Condemn the Israel and US attacks on Iran and support diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation of violence. 
 • Impose a two-way arms embargo and comprehensive sanctions on Israel until there is full compliance with international law. 
 • End all military, intelligence, and nuclear cooperation with Israel and hold Israel accountable for committing international crimes and on the grounds that it has failed to comply with its conditions as a UN member state. 
 • Refuse to provide any logistical support for any further illegal attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, including by denying permission for US B-2 or B-52 bombers attacking Iran to transit or refuel in their countries, and hold the US accountable for its unlawful attacks.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more