Why intervention in Iran is unjust, illegal, and must be prevented
The Middle East stands on the precipice of yet another disastrous and illegal war. It is time between Israel and Iran, with the United States once again poised to intervene.
If the lessons of history count for anything, especially the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003, then policymakers in Washington, London, and beyond must urgently pull back from the brink.
What we are witnessing is not a war of necessity, but one of reckless political calculation. It must be stopped.
At the centre of this looming crisis is the close alliance between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Instead of using his influence to de-escalate tensions, Trump has enthusiastically cheered Israel’s airstrikes against Iran, calling them “excellent”. He even demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender”.
More dangerously, he is reportedly considering US attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities, an action that would not only be deeply provocative but illegal under international law, specifically Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits attacks on facilities that could release dangerous forces, such as nuclear contamination.
Trump’s support for Israel’s campaign, combined with his disregard for US intelligence assessments, reveals a troubling pattern of unilateralism and disdain for international norms.
According to Trump’s own former Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons programme and its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has not authorized such efforts.
These conclusions align with long-standing assessments by the CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency whose Director General, Rafael Grossi, confirmed as recently as June 17 that there is “no proof” Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu insists that Iran is rapidly nearing a nuclear threshold, a narrative that has been flatly contradicted by American and international intelligence.
Just as in the build-up to the Iraq War, we are once again seeing claims of existential threats based on disputed or misrepresented intelligence.
The parallels are alarming. Netanyahu was an early and vocal backer of the neoconservative push for war in Iraq.
Then, it was Saddam Hussein’s fictional weapons of mass destruction. Now, it is Iran’s supposedly imminent nuclear arsenal.
For Trump, the irony is stark. He has previously called the Iraq War “the worst decision any president has made”, and accused the Bush administration of knowingly lying about weapons of mass destruction.
Yet today, he appears to be following that very same playbook, dismissive of facts, hostile to diplomacy, and eager to use force.
The implications of a US military strike on Iran are potentially catastrophic. While there may be no immediate plan for a ground invasion, such an attack would almost certainly trigger Iranian retaliation across the region from US military bases in Iraq and Bahrain to commercial and strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.
Global energy markets would feel the shockwaves instantly, with potential inflationary spirals and destabilization of the US dollar, a scenario that could push the American economy into stagflation.
Even the Houthi militia in Yemen, with its limited capabilities, have managed to disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea.
Iran, with far greater reach and resources, could do far worse, crippling vital trade routes and sending oil prices into the stratosphere.
Rather than deterring Tehran, an unprovoked assault could actually push Iran towards accelerating a nuclear weapons programme, using the attack as political justification both at home and abroad.
Britain, too, finds itself at a crossroads. Reports suggest that the UK’s attorney general has warned that any involvement beyond defensive support would likely be illegal.
Richard Hermer, the government’s chief legal advisor, has reportedly raised serious concerns about the legality of joining a bombing campaign.
If Prime Minister Keir Starmer is paying attention, he should recall the enduring political and moral cost of Tony Blair’s decision to follow the US into Iraq.
The British public has not forgotten and history will not be kind to those who repeat that mistake.
Restraint, diplomacy and reaffirmation of international law are what is urgently needed now, not another pretext for war.
The rules-based international order is already fragile. Violating this order further to pursue a manufactured conflict would have consequences far beyond the Middle East.
Today, it is the US and Israel that resort to pre-emptive self-defence. Tomorrow, another country can do the same with a neighbouring country, using the same rationale.
The international community must act decisively, not to inflame the conflict, but to prevent it.
Trump must be stopped, and the global community must hold firm to the principles of legality, restraint, and peace.
The price of failure will not only be measured in lives lost, but in the erosion of the very legal order that sustains global stability.
Mohamed Fahmy is the editor-in-chief of The Egyptian Gazette and Egyptian Mail newspapers
