“Dictatorships are best excised through the will of the people that such authoritarian regimes oppress, not by the violence of foreign powers eager to trample on the basic rules of international law,” writes Patrick O Brien.

My personal belief  has always been that no war is just, OK, it maybe seen as a anti-war perspective holding that war is inherently immoral, inherently destructive, and never produces truly just outcomes, but regardless of the cause, evading Iran, without following international war guidelines and drawing in several nations and surprising many with its scope and intensity, setting the Middle East alight, a war now in its third week and shows no sign of abating.

Before his death, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei presided over decades of internal repression of his people in Iran, he blocked even mild attempts at reform, and external belligerence, as he transformed Iran into a state sponsor of terrorism. His regime supported the “Axis of Resistance” network of mostly Shiite militias and terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Badr group in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza. In his speeches and rulings, he blamed any whiff of dissent or dysfunction at home on the US, which he called the “Great Satan,” or on Israel, the “Zionist regime.” To maintain control, he once admitted, “We need the United States as an enemy.” Both loyalists and dissidents wept over the death of Ayatollah Khamenei. This common reaction to a tyrant’s demise is a symptom of the damage they do.

Unfortunately, the goal of regime change by US President Donald Trump is no defense to the crime of aggression which has taken place. The Iranian people deserve freedom and dignity, and that their fight against tyranny should be supported but not by causing a foreign-orchestrated war which has in turn set the Middle East alight. The ill planning and uncertainty from the outset has undermined global markets, heightened economic instability and sowed the seeds for further international division. Iran flies in the face of the continent’s values. No one can believe that Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump’s goal is to defend the interests of the Iranian people. Wars do not liberate people; they devastate public services and deepen inequality.

Trump did not make a public case for the war before it began, because his personality prefers quick, surprising strikes preceded by theatrical suspense. He presented the vast military buildup in the Persian Gulf as a high-pressure negotiating tactic in the short-lived bargaining sessions over Iran’s nuclear enrichment. Trump was undoubtedly emboldened by the tactical success of his removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, though that too was not very popular with Americans or his EU neighbors.

So far, so wrong. One hard-line autocratic supreme leader has been replaced by an arguably even more implacable and hostile one, in terms of Western interests. Critics would also claim the war was illegal as it lacked not just a legal basis, but diplomatic routes and possible deterrence mechanisms, while even covert action alternatives had yet to be explored, never mind exhausted.

My concern touches on the fundamental debate in international relations and ethics: the distinction between the perceived need to oppose a repressive regime and the legitimacy, efficacy, and consequences of military intervention.

When so called evil dictators are removed, there is an assumption that whoever follows will be better. But it is just that, an assumption. Sometimes who you get next is worse. Bombing countries for the sake of democracy is illegal, rarely works, causes long term instability in the country and the region, and helps unravel the hard-won prohibition on the use of force in international law.

Before embarking on a new course that might culminate in military intervention, Western leaders should review their success rate at militarily removing dictators. Previous instances of regime decapitation not only removed the dictator but also destroyed the mechanisms that had been holding the state together, which led to greater instability and suffering. The main reason for this is that, since the European empires have been decolonized, the world’s most brutal tyrants have emerged in the most volatile parts of the former colonial empires. These dictators and their supporters forcibly held together states that are not always considered “nations”.

After the devastation of two world wars, the UN Charter drew a bright line, states may not use force against one another except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. That rule is not a technicality. It is the backbone of global stability. It protects weaker states from stronger ones and prevents powerful nations from deciding unilaterally which governments may live or die. When nations violate that rule, it does more than break international law. It undermines the very system it helped build and the one it relies on to restrain the ambitions of other major powers.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)