As expected, following the attack over the weekend mounted by a joint United States and Israel force on Iran resulting in the deaths of senior leaders of their Islamic regime including its “supreme leader” the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left-of-centre elements are crying over the breakdown of “international law”. Writing for The Conversation, Shannon Brincat and Juan Zahir Naranjo Cáceres lament how the “illegal” strikes had “blown up international law” — that this notion is now “in free fall”.
The interesting thing about the position these people take is how it is almost entirely propped up on a notion — “international law” — that has long proven to be “literally dead” (their own words). The authors make like the breakdown of this “international order” held up by the so-called “United Nations” was a recent thing. The historical record (for anyone who could be bothered to do a bit of research) shows that the impotence of both the UN and its “international law” has, in fact, been a reality for decades. The Philippines should know. Despite years of battling China’s incursion into its territories in one court or tribunal or the other, it has had resort to military means to secure its interests (in the form of physical re-arming and development of strategic alliances with global and regional powers). The Philippines’ own experience protecting its sovereignty is, itself, proof that a strong military (and the right alliances) ultimately trumps naïve reliance on a global fantasy.
It is easy to see the lameness of arguments that defer to “international law”. Brincat and Cáceres write…
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Preemptive self-defence, as we have argued previously, has extremely narrow prescriptions under the Caroline doctrine. It requires a threat to be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means”. No such conditions existed with Iran on February 28.
The Conversation, in short, suggest that countries should wait until their enemies are locked, loaded and present an “overwhelming” threat before force can be used. That’s essentially a suicidal position “international law” requires any country otherwise equipped to act on anticipated threats to take. Ridiculous, right? When is the Iran threat one to be considered “overwhelming” enough to quash then? Indeed, Iran has long proven to be a threat no normal person should be ignoring. Its Islamic regime backs and funds a who’s-who of murderous international thugs including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels. It gets better. The authors of the Conversation article also point out that “Russia and China criticised the US-Israeli actions and urged an immediate end to military operations and a return to diplomatic negotiations.” That’s rich considering that these are, well, Russia and China — not exactly good samples one would put up as authorities on “diplomatic negotiations” as alternatives to war or even just sabre rattling.
Waiting for criteria stipulated by “international law” to make military action “legal” to materialise is like holding off extinguishing a candle burning dangerously close to curtains. Human history is a graveyard filled with the corpses of “world government” bodies such as the League of Nations (which failed to be of any consequence in the lead up to world War II) and today’s United Nations which is evidently sidelined as big powers lock horns across the face of the planet. Much as woke “activists” would like to believe that their lot being on the right side of “international law” will save their asses from “evil”, the confronting reality is that everyone will need to be ready to fight a shooting war to save their sovereignty (or their “national pride” at the very least).
Weak nations exist only because strong countries allow them to. The the way the big global powers behave today, not much different from the way things have always been and will ever be, is reminding everyone of that inconvenient truth.
- According to “international law” attacking Iran is only justified if they posed an “instant” and “overwhelming” threat - March 2, 2026
- Philippines in list of countries considered havens for “Islamist terrorist ideologies” - February 17, 2026
- “Press freedom” activists and leftist groups up in arms over conviction of commie “journalist” Frenchie Mae Cumpio on charges of terrorist financing - January 23, 2026