"With the attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran, the US has engaged in an offensive war against Israel. This means that the US government is imitating Israel's behavior and approving of it. But in this case, it is a war that is illegal from the point of view of international law and the spiral of ignoring it will clearly continue to intensify," said Nicole Deitelhoff, professor of international relations at the University of Frankfurt, in an interview with ARD.
Israel demonstrates disrespect for the US
Why did the US attack now?
Nicole Deitelhoff: The question is rather - why did they attack only now? To answer this, we must go back to Israel's decision to launch an attack on Iran. This happened while the United States was still negotiating with Iran to limit its nuclear program. This means that, according to everything known so far, Israel has been bluffing the United States.
And the moment Israel informed the United States that it was preparing an attack, the American government found itself in a new strategic situation. One option was to remain in the role of an observer, even if Israel failed to end Iran's nuclear program, since it does not have the relevant weapons, and only the United States has such weapons. This would mean that Iran would harden its position further and accelerate the development of its non-civilian nuclear program with new brutality. And the second option was for the United States to actually intervene and ensure that Israel's attack would be successful. In a sense, Israel has forcibly drawn the US into this conflict.
How dangerous could US intervention in the conflict be for the region, and for the US itself?
N. Deitelhoff: In the US, this attack is not at all popular. Trump supporters in particular do not want to risk new conflicts and new US interventions. And Trump should have thought very carefully about whether he really wanted to alienate a large part of his supporters. He did.
At the same time, it is clear that the US has no plan. Trump's statements suggest that with the attacks on the three nuclear sites, US participation in the war is over. But this is unlikely, since Iran will definitely react in one way or another. For example, by attacking US bases in the region or with the assistance of pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen - i.e. There are many possibilities for a direct or indirect attack on the United States, which could necessitate further military strikes and lead to even greater escalation in the region.
To end the conflict, a credible agreement is needed
Iran is showing firmness and stating that it will continue to develop its nuclear program. Is this just a bluff by a weakened regime or is it really still possible?
N. Deitelhoff: At the moment, it is impossible to assess whether the bombed nuclear facilities have actually been completely destroyed - this will be clarified in the future. We also do not know whether the enriched uranium was not removed from Fordow. Iran has been developing its nuclear program for decades, which means that it could restore its facilities and continue its activities. In order to put a final end to the program, there needs to be a credible agreement.
To what extent are the Israeli and US attacks on Iran violations of international law?
N. Deitelhoff: There may be good strategic and political reasons for this war - for example, the unwillingness of Iran to possess nuclear weapons that it could use against Israel or other countries. It is understandable that one can show solidarity with Israel or even support its attacks. But regardless of everything, one must be fully aware that the attack is a categorical violation of the prohibition on the use of force. This is an offensive war, and it is prohibited.
And the moment this is covered up and acted as if this war were legal, one ends up permanently losing any tool that allows criticism of anyone who is waging aggressive wars - such as Russia against Ukraine. The situations and reasons for these aggressive wars are different, but both wars are offensive. When we stop respecting the law, and we want it to apply only to others, no one will respect it anymore.
We are returning to a world where only the law of the stronger applies
What will this mean for the world in the medium term - when the US is so openly violating international law?
N. Deitelhoff: One cannot even describe it dramatically enough. We are currently in a phase in which the world order, and with it international law, are on the verge of being abandoned. We see how fewer and fewer states - and not only small and insignificant ones, but also large and important ones - are starting to comply less and less with international law.
This leads to a situation in which no one recognizes international law anymore, because it is simply clear that no one is obliged to adhere to it. Thus we return to a world in which only the right of the stronger matters. And from the point of view of world politics, neither Europe nor Germany is among the stronger. We need the rules of the international order, we need international law.
Author: Tim Berendonk ARD