War and Peace Blog

Blog post #18, 3 April 2026

Most experts agree that the American-Israeli attack on Iran violates international law. There was no direct threat from Iran, and no permission was sought from the UN. Nevertheless, some proponents attempt to justify the attack by invoking the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. That sounds noble, and at its core, it is. The principle, unanimously adopted during a UN summit in 2005, holds that states must protect their populations against genocide, war crimes, and other serious crimes. If they refuse or fail to do so, that responsibility falls upon the international community. It is understandable that people turn to this principle in their indignation over the crimes of the Iranian regime. But however sympathetic it may sound, the R2P argument does not hold water here.

To begin with, the legal status of R2P is uncertain. It is usually viewed as a guideline, not as binding law. Moreover, the principle has become increasingly controversial in recent years. Many countries withdrew their support out of fear that R2P would be misused as an excuse for military interventions and the infringement of sovereignty.

That suspicion is not unfounded. Practice has shown how things can go wrong. In 2011, during the Arab Spring, the UN Security Council decided to intervene in Libya to protect civilians from the violence of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. An air campaign followed under the leadership of NATO. But gradually, the goal shifted from civilian protection to regime change. That was poorly received by countries like China. China had made the intervention possible by abstaining from voting in the Security Council and felt betrayed. Since then, the willingness to support similar operations has declined sharply.

Moreover, the intervention brought Libya no peace or stability. On the contrary. The country slid into chaos, with prolonged violence that continues to this day. Weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenals spread across the Sahel and contributed to the rise of jihadist militias and regional instability. The lesson we also saw in Afghanistan and Iraq was confirmed once again: a country cannot be bombed into a stable democracy. In fact, such attempts often increase the likelihood of prolonged conflict. As Hannah Arendt once remarked: violence changes the world, but usually in a more violent direction.

We are now seeing this dynamic of shifting targets and unpredictable consequences again in the Iran War. Here, too, the conflict is expanding regionally. And here, too, the chances are slim that the intervention will lead to a more stable and just Iran. Unfortunately, a scenario like the one in Libya is more likely.

There is therefore every reason for restraint. Especially since the current intervention does not even meet the conditions attached to R2P in 2005. According to those agreements, every effort must first be made using peaceful means, such as diplomacy and sanctions. Military intervention is merely a last resort. It must also be proportional and aimed at protecting civilians. Plus: permission from the UN Security Council is required. None of these conditions have been met in this case.

It is frustrating and painful that the international community has so far failed to stop the serious crimes of the Iranian regime. From that perspective, it is also understandable that some Iranians applaud the attack, in the hope of a better future. But that future is anything but certain. What we do know for sure is that further escalation affects more and more countries and people. That is precisely why international law is so important. However imperfect it may be, it exists to prevent these kinds of deviations. Let us not lose sight of that.