WITH the ceasefire still holding and further talks a distinct possibility, we can now reflect on the reasons why Iran was attacked and who wanted it to be attacked. It appears that a handful of people in the American administration believed that the idea of ‘Greater Israel’ needed to be supported as a religious obligation. The attack on Iran was part of a sequence to set the stage.

Let’s analyse the doctrinal framework that creates the justification for going to war itself — not the conduct in war but the reasoning for carrying out an attack or resorting to force. This framework is called ‘jus ad bellum’. Since early civilisation, jus ad bellum or the argument for a just war has been based on multiple reasons — for instance, the ambition to expand one’s empire, or the desire to take revenge in cases of generational animosity. In certain instances, religion was also counted as a justification. A clear casus belli or justification for use of force recognised in all religions and civilisations is the one for self-defence. This is codified in the language of Article 51 of the UN Charter. All states — religious or secular — have ratified the Charter. The Charter’s biggest contribution to history was to oust thousands of years of the practice of wars of aggression; it declared, instead, that borders would enjoy sanctity and no war or use of force would be considered legitimate if it was intended to expand boundaries. Consequently, occupation for military purposes, no matter how long, would not give the occupying power the title of the territory. The Charter........

© Dawn