There are two kinds of legal war: one sanctioned by the UN, and one fought for self defence. Retaliation is generally understood to be self defence, as a deterrent against further attacks.
So Iran’s retaliation has the potential to be legal, but by attacking everyone and their dog, they commit war crimes anyway.
The US and Israel claim the war is self defensive to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but this is not under the purview of self defence, which requires an imminent attack, not an improbable, repeated tale about nukes which could have been dealt with diplomatically. Of course Trump has offered a number of other justifications for the war all of which are even worse.
These are facts, do with them as you please. I see facts are not good enough for the majority who disliked my comment above for having the temerity to point out that Iran, of all countries, was doing something wrong.
Reflecting on this, I think it’s fair to consider the International Court of Justice (part of the UN) to be a legal system with legitimate jurisdiction over most countries - even if it’s frequently unable to enforce its law. And therefore it’s reasonable to describe a war as “illegal”, wrt the UN.
But I do believe it’s a pointless description - I can’t think of any legal wars, especially if one believes committing war crimes makes even a UN-sanctioned war illegal. I consider it a propagandic description used to put spin on a war. (And just adding that on a personal level, I believe legality is irrelevant to morality and acceptability)
Retaliation is generally understood to be self defence, as a deterrent against further attacks.
While the statement may be true, I want to emphasize that a common tactic is for a country to harass or suppress another country until they retaliate, and claim that retaliation is in fact unprompted aggression which must be retaliated against. While there are notable cases of this in the past decade, this tactic is tried and true across centuries. Therefore, we often see wars where both sides claim self-defense, and both their blocs generally understand their side to be justified.
I think everything you said is true, except there have been a couple of legal wars. The intervention in Kosovo was sanctioned by the UN for example. The UK carried out a legal war of self defence when Argentina invaded its overseas territory of the Falklands. Ukraine is legally trying to repel Russia.
I wouldn’t say that committing war crimes makes the entire war illegal, either.
In the end “it’s illegal” is a shorthand; it expresses a certain kind of reasoned opposition but shouldn’t automatically be the end of the conversation.
There are two kinds of legal war: one sanctioned by the UN, and one fought for self defence. Retaliation is generally understood to be self defence, as a deterrent against further attacks.
So Iran’s retaliation has the potential to be legal, but by attacking everyone and their dog, they commit war crimes anyway.
The US and Israel claim the war is self defensive to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but this is not under the purview of self defence, which requires an imminent attack, not an improbable, repeated tale about nukes which could have been dealt with diplomatically. Of course Trump has offered a number of other justifications for the war all of which are even worse.
These are facts, do with them as you please. I see facts are not good enough for the majority who disliked my comment above for having the temerity to point out that Iran, of all countries, was doing something wrong.
Reflecting on this, I think it’s fair to consider the International Court of Justice (part of the UN) to be a legal system with legitimate jurisdiction over most countries - even if it’s frequently unable to enforce its law. And therefore it’s reasonable to describe a war as “illegal”, wrt the UN.
But I do believe it’s a pointless description - I can’t think of any legal wars, especially if one believes committing war crimes makes even a UN-sanctioned war illegal. I consider it a propagandic description used to put spin on a war. (And just adding that on a personal level, I believe legality is irrelevant to morality and acceptability)
While the statement may be true, I want to emphasize that a common tactic is for a country to harass or suppress another country until they retaliate, and claim that retaliation is in fact unprompted aggression which must be retaliated against. While there are notable cases of this in the past decade, this tactic is tried and true across centuries. Therefore, we often see wars where both sides claim self-defense, and both their blocs generally understand their side to be justified.
I think everything you said is true, except there have been a couple of legal wars. The intervention in Kosovo was sanctioned by the UN for example. The UK carried out a legal war of self defence when Argentina invaded its overseas territory of the Falklands. Ukraine is legally trying to repel Russia.
I wouldn’t say that committing war crimes makes the entire war illegal, either.
In the end “it’s illegal” is a shorthand; it expresses a certain kind of reasoned opposition but shouldn’t automatically be the end of the conversation.