Terry Glavin: Only Cowards Object to Iran War on 'International Law' Grounds
The Islamic regime in Iran is explicitly criminal, slaughtering its own people and sponsoring terrorists around the world, according to columnist Terry Glavin. In a recent piece, he argues that objecting to the American-Israeli war against Iran on grounds of international law is an act of moral indifference and cowardice.
Respectable Demands vs. Cowardly Objections
Glavin acknowledges that it is perfectly respectable to demand that the United States and Israel abide by the laws of war in their ongoing operations. Operation Epic Fury and the joint U.S.-Israeli Operation Roaring Lion are aimed at crippling and disarming the Khomeinist regime in Iran. There is no shame in wondering how closely the Americans will follow the Geneva Conventions, especially with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's aggressive stance against rules of engagement and nation-building.
However, Glavin contends that to object to the war as a transgression of international law is to hide behind a thin veil of juridical etiquette. He suggests this maneuver is widespread, citing examples from political discourse.
Political Reactions and Contradictions
In a typical complaint, Victoria Liberal MP Will Greaves objected to Prime Minister Mark Carney's apparent attempt to have it both ways. Carney endorsed the American-Israeli effort to prevent nuclear bombs in Iran while expressing sadness about contravening the United Nations charter. Greaves argued that Canada cannot endorse unilateral military force, civilian killings, or assassinations while insisting on respect for sovereignty and rights.
Glavin responds that while it is fair to laud the UN charter for sustaining Canada's sovereignty, it is another matter to abandon the Iranian people to the capriciousness of those rules. He compares this to an appeal from a luxury oceanliner to maintain course while leaving passengers of a sinking ship to drown.
The Core Contradiction
The crux of the contradiction, according to Glavin, lies in the argument for obedience to international law regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since the Khomeinists seized power in 1979, they have committed innumerable crimes against humanity, violating international laws on human rights, including life, liberty, security, assembly, association, opinion, religion, and protest. International law, in this context, has required the Iranian people to suffer in darkness.
This was evident in recent United Nations Human Rights Council deliberations in Geneva. Convened on January 23, the council considered overwhelming evidence of the Iranian regime's arbitrary arrests, torture, and mass slaughter of perhaps 30,000 people in response to widespread protests. These actions highlight the regime's brutal nature and the failure of international legal frameworks to protect the Iranian people.
Glavin's argument emphasizes that moral courage is needed to confront such regimes, rather than hiding behind legal technicalities that enable further atrocities.
