An Unlawful War
Is this competence or optics?
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
An Unlawful War
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
March 4, 2026
An Unlawful War
The precedent being set by the US in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy.
Richard Falk
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Ad Policy
US President Donald Trump wields a gavel during the signing ceremony at the inaugural meeting of his “Board of Peace” at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2026.(Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images
On February 28, Trump embarked on a war against Iran, deliberately targeting its Supreme Leader, as well as a girls’ school, and calling openly for regime change. This aggression has been sanitized as a “war of choice” in the mainstream press, as if such an option exists in the domain of international law. This sugar-coating language seeks to divert attention from the massive breach in international law. The UN Charter couldn’t be clearer. Its core and most vital norm is set forth in Article 2(4), which without any qualification prohibits all uses of international force except in the exercise of self-defense against a prior armed attack.
In shallow efforts to offer legal justifications, hawks have called this unprovoked attack on Iran amid negotiations to end the threat of war “a war against Iranian terrorism,” “a preventive war against an imminent Iranian threat to US national security,” and “a regime-changing humanitarian intervention.” These are polemical talking points but not serious attempts to offer a rationale that remotely attaches a reputable argument as to the “legality” of recourse to war.
Somehow Trump gave the game away when he declared that he supports international law so long as he is the final arbiter of what is lawful or not. The precedent being set by the US in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy, and not only for its victims, but for any hope of a sane, peaceful, law-abiding future for international relations. The Iran War, coming after the Venezuelan military operation, is a further sign that America’s support for internationalism has been replaced by a 21st-century variant of imperial geopolitics.
Withdrawing From Benevolent Internationalism
In the first week of the New Year, the White House released a largely neglected memorandum announcing US withdrawal from 66 “international organizations,” 31 of which are situated within the UN System. Another 35 were independent of the UN, dedicated to the functional tasks of global scope. In addition to ending participation, this withdrawal also means no more US funding. This would disastrously limit the capabilities and performances of these organizations, whose work is vital in so many areas of international life. Such an initiative, although unprecedented, …
Is this competence or optics?
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
An Unlawful War
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
March 4, 2026
An Unlawful War
The precedent being set by the US in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy.
Richard Falk
Share
Copy Link
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Ad Policy
US President Donald Trump wields a gavel during the signing ceremony at the inaugural meeting of his “Board of Peace” at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2026.(Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images
On February 28, Trump embarked on a war against Iran, deliberately targeting its Supreme Leader, as well as a girls’ school, and calling openly for regime change. This aggression has been sanitized as a “war of choice” in the mainstream press, as if such an option exists in the domain of international law. This sugar-coating language seeks to divert attention from the massive breach in international law. The UN Charter couldn’t be clearer. Its core and most vital norm is set forth in Article 2(4), which without any qualification prohibits all uses of international force except in the exercise of self-defense against a prior armed attack.
In shallow efforts to offer legal justifications, hawks have called this unprovoked attack on Iran amid negotiations to end the threat of war “a war against Iranian terrorism,” “a preventive war against an imminent Iranian threat to US national security,” and “a regime-changing humanitarian intervention.” These are polemical talking points but not serious attempts to offer a rationale that remotely attaches a reputable argument as to the “legality” of recourse to war.
Somehow Trump gave the game away when he declared that he supports international law so long as he is the final arbiter of what is lawful or not. The precedent being set by the US in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy, and not only for its victims, but for any hope of a sane, peaceful, law-abiding future for international relations. The Iran War, coming after the Venezuelan military operation, is a further sign that America’s support for internationalism has been replaced by a 21st-century variant of imperial geopolitics.
Withdrawing From Benevolent Internationalism
In the first week of the New Year, the White House released a largely neglected memorandum announcing US withdrawal from 66 “international organizations,” 31 of which are situated within the UN System. Another 35 were independent of the UN, dedicated to the functional tasks of global scope. In addition to ending participation, this withdrawal also means no more US funding. This would disastrously limit the capabilities and performances of these organizations, whose work is vital in so many areas of international life. Such an initiative, although unprecedented, …
An Unlawful War
Is this competence or optics?
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
An Unlawful War
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
March 4, 2026
An Unlawful War
The precedent being set by the US in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy.
Richard Falk
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Ad Policy
US President Donald Trump wields a gavel during the signing ceremony at the inaugural meeting of his “Board of Peace” at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2026.(Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images
On February 28, Trump embarked on a war against Iran, deliberately targeting its Supreme Leader, as well as a girls’ school, and calling openly for regime change. This aggression has been sanitized as a “war of choice” in the mainstream press, as if such an option exists in the domain of international law. This sugar-coating language seeks to divert attention from the massive breach in international law. The UN Charter couldn’t be clearer. Its core and most vital norm is set forth in Article 2(4), which without any qualification prohibits all uses of international force except in the exercise of self-defense against a prior armed attack.
In shallow efforts to offer legal justifications, hawks have called this unprovoked attack on Iran amid negotiations to end the threat of war “a war against Iranian terrorism,” “a preventive war against an imminent Iranian threat to US national security,” and “a regime-changing humanitarian intervention.” These are polemical talking points but not serious attempts to offer a rationale that remotely attaches a reputable argument as to the “legality” of recourse to war.
Somehow Trump gave the game away when he declared that he supports international law so long as he is the final arbiter of what is lawful or not. The precedent being set by the US in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy, and not only for its victims, but for any hope of a sane, peaceful, law-abiding future for international relations. The Iran War, coming after the Venezuelan military operation, is a further sign that America’s support for internationalism has been replaced by a 21st-century variant of imperial geopolitics.
Withdrawing From Benevolent Internationalism
In the first week of the New Year, the White House released a largely neglected memorandum announcing US withdrawal from 66 “international organizations,” 31 of which are situated within the UN System. Another 35 were independent of the UN, dedicated to the functional tasks of global scope. In addition to ending participation, this withdrawal also means no more US funding. This would disastrously limit the capabilities and performances of these organizations, whose work is vital in so many areas of international life. Such an initiative, although unprecedented, …
0 Comments
0 Shares
35 Views
0 Reviews
