{"id":6957,"date":"2026-04-05T17:02:39","date_gmt":"2026-04-05T17:02:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/2026\/04\/05\/law-politics-and-hypocrisy-the-global-response-to-the-iran-conflict-jerusalem-center-for-security-and-foreign-affairs\/"},"modified":"2026-04-05T17:02:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-05T17:02:39","slug":"law-politics-and-hypocrisy-the-global-response-to-the-iran-conflict-jerusalem-center-for-security-and-foreign-affairs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/2026\/04\/05\/law-politics-and-hypocrisy-the-global-response-to-the-iran-conflict-jerusalem-center-for-security-and-foreign-affairs\/","title":{"rendered":"Law, Politics, and Hypocrisy: The Global Response to the Iran Conflict – Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Law, Politics, and Hypocrisy: The Global Response to the Iran Conflict
The West Wants Finite Wars. Its Enemies Are Fighting Forever Wars
Reassessing the Death Penalty in Israel\u2019s Counterterrorism Framework
Provocation As Strategy: How the Iran-Led Axis of Resistance Turns Loss into Leverage \u2013 And Why It May Fail
What Are the Implications of the Houthis Joining the War Alongside Iran?
Confronting Jihad\u2019s Forever War
When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran<\/a> in Operations \u2018Epic Fury\u2019 and \u2018Roaring Lion\u2019 on February 28, 2026, critics both in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere charged that there was no imminent threat, questioning the underlying assumption of the military campaign.
The Guardian<\/em> called the attacks an illegal war. Brookings analysts dismissed them as a \u201cwar of choice.\u201d On March 17, 2026, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, posted his resignation on X and claimed that \u201cIran posed no imminent threat to our nation,\u201d suggesting the United States entered the war due to Israeli pressure.
The choir of critics accusing Israel of conducting \u201can unlawful war\u201d and of \u201cdragging the U.S. into such war\u201d was as inevitable as it was predictable.
The clearly partisan political motivating factors \u2013 principally the predictable and automatic reservation regarding any action with which Israel may be associated, but also a deep mistrust, aversion, and animosity towards President Trump \u2013 are so obvious and unsubstantive as to render such criticism and opposition as ungenuine and insincere.
This is further demonstrated by the continued hesitation of European and other Western countries to cooperate in what they still label an \u201cunnecessary war,\u201d despite it serving their essential interests.
And thus, UN Secretary-General Guterres, accompanied by a squad of international-law scholars, anti-war activists, policymakers, media, and NGOs, felt duty-bound to voice predictable reservations regarding the joint U.S.-Israeli action against Iran, claiming that it violates the UN Charter provision against the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran.
The need to dress politically-generated, partisan criticism in the guise of international law renders it all the more cynical and shallow, while undermining the very international law they seek to protect.
To seriously expect the U.S. and Israel to await a prior armed attack, as called for in Article 51 of the Charter, before responding to an immediate and potentially nuclear threat, and to expect them to engage the UN Security Council and other diplomatic mechanisms, is indicative of the naive, short sighted, and shuttered mindset prevalent in the mind of the UN Secretary-General and the other critics.
One need only view the openly declared Iranian threats against the U.S. and threats to annihilate Israel, as well as Iran\u2019s development of nuclear capabilities, in order to realize its threats. The actual examples of Iranian aggression by firing missiles against Israel and its active use of terror proxies, Hamas, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, are ample examples of continuing Iranian aggression and terror.
Clearly, in light of the immediate danger posed by Iranian missile, nuclear, and ongoing terror threats, the application of the UN Charter provision was legally inappropriate in circumstances involving a nuclear and missile threat, as it did not adequately address or account for these specific security concerns.
Furthermore, the curious and misguided allegations by inherently partisan sources are intended to suit the political motives of those making such claims that:
These are all spurious allegations without factual or legal basis that deliberately ignore the immediacy and inherent danger of the Iranian threat.
The absurd allegation by European academic authorities and UN officials that this is a \u2018supreme international crime of aggression\u2019 is no less indicative of the narrow, one-sided and shuttered viewpoint that chooses to view aggression selectively without knowledge of the various accepted international law definitions of aggression, and without considering the sui-generis<\/em> nature, imminent danger and immeasurable extent of the Iranian nuclear and terror threats.
The claim by domestic U.S. critics and policymakers that the administration\u2019s action against Iran lacked congressional authorization ignores the fact that the Constitution indeed enables the administration to act in self-defense against perceived imminent threats and to protect U.S. troops and US allies from being attacked by Iran’s national security forces.
The claim that there was a \u201cbreach of good faith\u201d by commencing the war during active U.S.-Iran negotiations is selective and naive inasmuch as it deliberately ignores the fact that Iran was in dire breach of any good faith criterion in negotiating, while at the same time continuing to complete its preparations for nuclear weaponization.
The concept of \u201cgood faith\u201d or \u201cbona fides<\/em>\u201d is a reciprocal concept binding on all parties. When Iran claims to negotiate while preparing to attack, and when Iran seeks to negotiate a termination of the war while at the same time ordering the Houthis in Yemen to barrage Israel with missiles, any claim of bona fides<\/em> loses credibility.
General allegations by humanitarian-law NGOs and critics against Israel and the U.S., claiming collective punishment, disproportionate civilian-infrastructure strikes, blockades, and siege tactics, appear to be off-the-cuff reactions based on a lack of accurate knowledge of the facts.
The targeting policies of both Israel and the U.S. are strictly in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law, aimed at neutralizing and destroying legitimate military, tactical, and strategic targets that serve the Iranian war machine and that enable the Iranian Jihadist regime from furthering its aims.
This is in direct contrast to the targeting policies of Iran and its proxies, Hizbullah and the Houthis, whose deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population and commercial centers in Israel and the Gulf states violate established principles of international humanitarian law, specifically the prohibitions against targeting civilians and civilian objects as a means of terror.
The declared use by Iran and its proxy Hizbullah of cluster weaponry against civilian concentrations in Israel and the Gulf states is a distinct violation of international law prohibitions of such weaponry, including the International Convention on Cluster Weapons.
Blockage of navigation of the Hormoz strait by Iran constitutes a clear violation of the international law rights to unimpeded, innocent, and transit passage in international straits as set out in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The fact that the UN Secretary-General, as depository of that Convention, has not found cause to criticize Iran for violating the convention, and prefers to concentrate his criticism of Israel,
It is not unusual in today\u2019s international realities for Israel, as a matter of course, to be blamed for acting illegally, no matter what it may do, or may not do. In fact, accusing Israel of acting illegally seems to be the fashionable thing to do.
The reasons, as illogical and hollow as they appear, are many and usually stem from the political, religious, or national orientation of the accuser. Rarely do they meet clear empirical criteria, so they cannot be relied upon as accurate judgments of true legality or illegality.
The popular assumption is that if Israel does anything, it must by definition be illegal. This presumed illegality is backed up and whitewashed by attempted justifications in terms of international law and practice.
When Israel reacted to the notoriously cruel and ruthless massacre of over a thousand of its citizens by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023, and the taking of hundreds of hostages, by entering the Gaza Strip in order to seek out and counter the terror threat and to prevent repeated acts of terror by Hamas, then Israel was, and continues to be accused of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population of Gaza.
Such presumed criminality is given international legitimacy by a number of questionable paragons of international humanitarian virtue, such as South Africa, backed by Iran and other states, who advance an accusation of genocide against Israel before the International Court of Justice.
Hence, the fashionable code-phrase and buzzword used in international parlance of Israel committing genocide becomes the norm.
And if such an accusation can so easily and readily be acceptable in the international community, then clearly, when Israel finds itself under existential threat from an Iranian Jihadist terror-supporting regime intent on eliminating its very existence, then any act by Israel and by the U.S. to preempt such very real, imminent, and dangerous threat from being implemented, through military action, is automatically labeled as unlawful.
The cynicism and hypocrisy of the critics of the war are as predictable as they are insincere.
Invest in JCFA
The Daily Alert \u2013 Israel news digest appears every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday.
Anti-Semitism in Canada<\/a>
Defensible Borders for Israel<\/a>
Combating Delegitimization and BDS<\/a>
Institute for Contemporary Affairs<\/a>
Jerusalem in International Diplomacy<\/a>
Institute for Global Jewish Affairs<\/a>
Human Rights and International Law in the Middle East<\/a>
Economic Development in Israel<\/a>
The Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA) strengthens Israel\u2019s vital security interests, transforming policy research into actionable, applied diplomacy by leveraging our unique position as Jerusalem\u2019s \u201cglobal embassy,\u201d featuring a culturally diverse team of diplomatic and national security experts, and engaging partners from across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe and North America.
Dr. Dan Diker is President of the Jerusalem Center.
Get the latest news, insights, and updates directly in your inbox\u2014be the first to know!<\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Law, Politics, and Hypocrisy: The Global Response to the Iran ConflictThe West Wants Finite Wars. Its Enemies Are Fighting Forever WarsReassessing the Death Penalty in Israel\u2019s Counterterrorism FrameworkProvocation As Strategy: How the Iran-Led Axis of Resistance Turns Loss into Leverage \u2013 And Why It May FailWhat Are the Implications of the Houthis Joining the War […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6958,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6957","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6957\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}