Operation Outlaw: Iran apologists and the assault on international law

While bombs fall on Tehran, Iran apologists in Western capitals dress regime change in the language of peace and security, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.

ANOTHER ATTACK, another breach of the United Nations Charter occurred on 28 February 2026. A gross violation of international law.

As usual, a violation celebrated as ethical, necessary and high-minded in principle by the powerful who dictate such terms. Not squalid, dangerous or destabilising. Not, apparently, following the same pattern as before: interventions in Iraq, Libya. Not, goodness, another intervention to overthrow the regime of this same country, orchestrated by the United States and Britain in 1953.

Yes, this was Iran, bombed for a second time in under a year, its hierarchy targeted, again, only more comprehensively. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was slain, along with his advisor, Ali Shamkhani, and a number of senior officials in the armed forces, intelligence services and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

This time, the joint operation between Israel and the United States took two different forms. (These distinctions seem to have eluded the inattentive press hacks.) The Israeli side of the bargain is Operation Lion’s Roar; the American, Operation Epic Fury. Both are equally mendacious in their justifications; the former focused on neutralising Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities, the latter more broadly on crippling Iran’s influence in funding proxies and fostering the conditions for regime change.

Funding firestorms: Washington’s war habit and Canberra’s silence

As U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran escalate, billions flow into conflict while Australia backs the alliance without question.

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the objective was ending “the threat of the Ayatollah regime in Iran”. The clerical tyrants were “plotting to rebuild their nuclear and missile capabilities” and placing them “underground, where we cannot reach them. If we do not stop them now, they will become invulnerable”.

The 28 February statement from U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social justified the pre-emptive attack with some spectacular nonsense.

According to Trump:

“[Tehran] attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”

Their ballistic missile industry would be razed, the navy annihilated, their armed proxies crippled. Members of the Revolutionary Guard would be given complete immunity in laying down their arms; Iranian citizens should, given the chance, rise up and seize the reins of power.

With these deeds of outlawry, what could we expect from countries so keen to impress upon others the merits of international law? The answer: not much. The farrago of lies from Netanyahu and Trump was of no interest to Australia, with the Albanese Government quick in its support and conniving in the breach of international law.

Showing no interest in whether Iran had a nuclear capability or posed an imminent threat, Canberra simply:

“...recognised that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to global peace and security. The international community has been clear that the Iranian regime can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Disingenuously, the statement referred to the reimposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Tehran for not complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action without mentioning that Trump, with Israeli pressure, sabotaged it in the first place.

Albanese said:

“We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

If ever a servile poltroon could be expected to write a note of approval for the savaging of international law and the undermining of the UN order, this was it.

The Canadian government of Mark Carney took much the same line.

Prime Minister Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand stated:

‘Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.’

This endorsement of unlawful aggression prompted Lloyd Axworthy, a former foreign affairs minister, to call it “an abandonment of a long-standing element of our foreign policy”. Former Canadian diplomat Sabine Nölke also noted that there was no “logical connection to why we are now supporting a prima facie illegal act of war of aggression”. There was no necessity in attacking Iran; this was but a “war of choice”.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in a joint statement, reiterated the scolding line of Iran as the central threat, be it with its nuclear and ballistic missile program, its subversive activities and its human rights abuses. The only strikes to be condemned were not the pre-emptive ones of Israel and the United States, in which the three countries played no part, but Iran’s ‘indiscriminate military strikes’.

The European Union was also mealy-mouthed, never condemning the U.S.-Israeli actions as a breach of international law in its 1 March statement, focusing instead on its meritorious sanctions policy on Iran, Tehran’s bleak human rights record, and ‘Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programmes, and its support for armed groups in the Middle East’.

The EU had consistently urged Iran to end its ‘nuclear programme, curb its ballistic missile programme, refrain from destabilising activities in the region and in Europe, and to cease the appalling violence and repression against its own people’.

How Iran’s regime weaponised religion

Behind the language of morality and law, Iran’s theocracy has spent decades protecting abusers and punishing their victims.

All the blame for the illegal pre-emptive assault on Iran had been its own fault. With staggering omission of the obvious, Tehran was accused of being the aggressor by countering attacks on itself with strikes on U.S. bases and facilities in other countries. Nonetheless, ‘maximum restraint, protection of civilians and full respect of international law, including the principles of the United Nations Charter, and international humanitarian law’ was called for, despite there being no international humanitarian law to keep, nor a Charter to protect.

The EU statement continued:

‘Iran’s attacks and violation of sovereignty of a number of countries in the region are inexcusable. Iran must refrain from indiscriminate military strikes.’

Clearly, breaching the UN Charter was perfectly excusable for Israel and the U.S. The object, ultimately, was to ensure that Iran never acquired a nuclear weapon. The EU would assist diplomatically in that regard, ignoring that diplomatic talks were underway between Washington and Tehran when the attacks took place.

The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, instead of condemning the attacks as having the potential to sunder regional security, demanded a ‘credible transition in Iran’.

Kaja Kallas, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, seemed to celebrate the killing of Ali Khamenei as ‘a defining moment in Iran’s history’. While uncertainty had presented itself, there was ‘now an open path to a different Iran, one that its people may have greater freedom to shape’.

Both officials are clearly untutored on the disasters of imposed change upon Iran and other countries in the Middle East, where the people’s wishes are inconsequential to foreign meddlers.

Most European states, cowed and shrinking, refused to mention the illegality of the Israeli-U.S. action. It was Iran’s actions that were to be blamed in all senses. With haughty hypocrisy, Iran was told that it could never acquire a nuclear weapon, leaving aside the uncomfortable fact that Israel was an undeclared nuclear power that avoided international regulations and scrutiny of its program.

Czechia’s Prime Minister, Andrej Babiš, for instance, preferred to ignore history by simply calling Iran’s nuclear program ‘uncontrollable’. That, along with its ‘support for terrorism are a danger for us and to all of Europe’.

Estonia’s Foreign Minister, Margus Tsahkna, in keeping with the parochial pathologies of his country and other Baltic states, thought the killing of the Ayatollah ‘a significant setback for Iran’s ally, Russia’.

The only EU leader to show sense and awareness of the unfolding conflict was Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz, who rejected ‘the unilateral action by the United States and Israel” which had contributed “to a more uncertain and hostile international order’.

While also repudiating the actions of Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the PM lamented: