Loading summary
Transcript14 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is a bonus episode of history as it happens. It's March 4, 2026. The United States and Israel are at war with Iran for a jumble of reasons, as administration officials offer shifting rationales for why they launched an unprovoked attack and what they aim to achieve, expanding the possibility of an open ended war where any victory is hard to define.
- [00:23]
B
We warned Iran not to make any attempt to rebuild at a different location because they they were unable to use the ones that we so powerfully blew up. But they ignored those warnings and refused to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons. In addition, the regime's conventional ballistic missile program was growing rapidly and dramatically.
- [00:45]
C
Metrics are shifting, dust is settling and more forces are arriving. It's very early and as President Trump has said, we will take all the time we need to make sure that we succeed.
- [00:55]
D
We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American for and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.
- [01:09]
A
Iran's regime has not collapsed as President Trump hoped it would, at least not yet. Despite the assassination of the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran is defending itself and escalating the war by firing missiles and drones at Gulf State allies of the United States. Is any of this legal? Does that even matter? Well, yes, but laws are laws of war don't magically prevent unnecessary illegal conflicts. As President Trump himself said recently, he has no use for international law. There's also the US Constitution, which gives Congress the responsibility for declaring war. Congress has surrendered its responsibilities. Adil Haque is an expert on the law and ethics of armed conflict and the philosophy of international law at Rutgers Law School. His first book, Law and Morality at War, was published in 2017. Hannah Adil Haque, hello again.
- [02:01]
E
Thanks for having me back.
- [02:03]
A
So, let's begin with the aggressors here, the United States and Israel. Was the initiation of hostilities legal under international law?
- [02:13]
E
No. So under international law it is a violation of the United Nations Charter to use armed force against another state with two exceptions. One is when the use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council and the other is in self defense if an armed attack occurs and not. Neither of those criteria are met here. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force here. Obviously all members of the Council are concerned about Iran's nuclear program, but none of them other than the United States thought that military action was the right way to respond to that problem. And of course Iran had not attacked the United States or Israel and there was no imminent armed attack. Iran was negotiating with the United States up to, you know, an hour before the, the bomb started to drop.
- [03:01]
A
Senator Tom Cotton said there's been an immin attack from Iran for 47 years.
- [03:06]
F
Iran has posed an imminent risk to the United States for 47 years as they've maimed and killed thousands of Americans without that vast missile arsenal. The President was right to act when he did.
- [03:18]
E
Yeah, it's sort of a self refuting claim, of course. So an imminent armed attack is one that is planned where the adversary is committed to carrying out the attack and it is about to happen and the window of opportunity to prevent it is about to close. And again, neither of those criteria area are met here. Iran was trying to resolve this diplomatically. They were perhaps playing hardball on some issues, but they were still negotiating. They were not planning to attack.
- [03:46]
A
I want to pick away at some of the other shifting rationales the administration has given for starting the war. But I want to share with you something that fellow by the name of Mark Urban wrote on his substack. He writes for the Sunday Times of London. He's the diplomatic editor for Newsnight there. And he does say in his substack that he believes this war has only the slenderest basis in international law. But he says the problem for those standing on the legal principle is twofold. Firstly, as liberal media, politicians and lawyers need constantly to be reminded, only three wars in history have met the international legal gold standard of being endorsed by a chapter seven all necessary means UN Security Council resolution that was Korea, 1950, 1991, Kuwait and 2011. The Libyan campaign by NATO. How do you respond to that?
- [04:37]
E
Well, I think that that is a good thing because it reflects the fact that there have been very few wars where there was international consensus that they ought to be fought. I should note there have also been wars like the Ukraine's defensive war against Russia that were not authorized by the Security Council but are clearly legal as a clear exercise of the right of self defense. But it just shows that outside to
- [05:02]
A
listen to this entire 20 minute episode Tap subscribe now in the show notes you'll get all of our bonus content, early access and ad free listening or go to historyasithappens.com and sign up.