Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani 1155

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.

The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.

following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;

The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:

The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats

In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.

There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.

I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”

In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information

Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.

Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.

The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.

Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.

Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.

As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.

The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.

But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.

The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

1,155 thoughts on “Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani

1 7 8 9
  • N_

    Two sets of Ukrainian figures (first official, second unofficial) for nationalities of those killed in the PS752 crash:

    First set
    Iran 82
    Canada 63
    Ukraine 2 + 9 crew
    Sweden 10
    Afghanistan 4
    Germany 3
    Britain 3

    Second set
    Canada 73
    Iran 71
    Ukraine 15
    Britain 3

  • Republicofscotland

    So its too early to tell if the plane crash in Iran which killed everyone onboard was due to a mechanical failure or other. Apparently the aircraft was serviced but a few days ago, and that particular older model is supposed be reliable, not like the Boeing jet that’s been ground recently due to several crashes.

    The Iranian missile strikes in Iraq aimed at US military personnel in their bases, was palmed off by Trump who claimed that everything was fine or words to that effect. Did Iran prewarn the Americans of the strikes, as in the case of the Americans prewarning the Russians of the missile strike in Syria last year.

    I can only assume that they did as dead American troops would only escalate the situation further. Just as importantly has Iran now saved face by the attack, and will tension now abated somewhat, it’s probably far too early to tell.

    The outcome of the plane crash and its causes might stoke the flames of war if foul play is revealed, I hope not.

    • John Pretty

      Regarding the tragic plance crash, as you say, republicofscotland, it is a bit too early to say.

      Perhaps the Iranians made stringent efforts to avoid casualties in their missile strikes?

    • John Pretty

      Jack, did you expect them to say anything else?

      I’ve not seen a report of casualties.

      Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile strike as a “slap in the face” for the United States, but said that the attack was not “sufficient” to remove “the corrupting presence of America in the region.”

      As for further escalation, I think it is too early to say.

      • Jack

        Of course there will be escalation! This is what Trump and the neocons have been waiting for.

  • reads247

    More on my idea (on page 8 of the comments) that we are at war with China in the Middle East:

    … Trump said he would ask Iraq to pay for the bases the U.S. has built should the U.S. troops be kicked out of Iraq. The U.S. already has binding legal agreements with Iraq which stipulate that the bases, and all fixed installations the U.S. has built there, are the property of Iraq.

    Trump had already asked Iraqi Prime Ministers -twice- if the U.S. could get Iraq’s oil as reward for invading and destroying their country. The requests were rejected. Now we learn that Trump also uses gangster methods (ar) to get the oil of Iraq. The talk by the Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Mahdi happened during the recent parliament session in Iraq (machine translation):

    … Mr. Abdul Mahdi spoke with an angry tone, saying:

    “The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They are those who refuse to complete building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for giving up 50% of Iraqi oil imports, so I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it, and today Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement.” …

    Abdul Mahdi continued:

    “After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party.” …

    • Carol

      This is the same tactic that was used in Syria and Ukraine, I’m just surprised Trump is stupid enough to admit to it. He must have the IQ of a five year old. He’s obviously illiterate.

  • Blissex

    On reflection another summary of why I quite disagree with our blogger on this: the premise is that the USA government is not lying when they claim that strike on Q Suleimani is an act of *preventive* war, because he was about to start a war on USA forces. Our blogger demolishes the “preventive” aspect of that claim, and I don’t diosagree.

    That claim is however a lie, not *wrong*: the USA are *already* at war with the Quds Force, the USA armed forces and the Quds Force have been fighting for quite a while on various fronts, and within that war killing enemy generals is a standard tactic of war, they are soldiers too.
    It is not a “hot” war as between countries, and it is not a “cold” war either, but a “warm” or limited (and mostly by proxy) conflict.
    The claim of a threat of an “imminent” war is a lie because the USA government (and the iranian government) don’t want to admit that they are *already* at war with each other.

  • anthonyhall

    ISIS was the Love Child of Israel, Turkey and the Pentagon. Soleimani helped the Kurds Peshmerga, Iran`s PMU`s , Lebanon`s Hezbollah, and the revitalised Iraqi Army defeat ISIS. That is why he was Killed by Trump for Israel. Trump did not know Soleimani from a hole in the ground. Will the Rulers of Iraq obey their People and Kick the Americans out. Trump said that Soleimani was responsible for Thousands of US Soldiers Deaths. How Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Iraqi Civilians have America killed in Iraq ? How many were Killrd during “Shock and Awe?” Killed by “Collateral Damage”, “Friendly Fire?” Killed by Trigger Happy American Military Morons at Road Blocks ETC.

  • Maria Brunell

    Very interesting article! This Bethlehem doctrine is really Satanic!

    But 9.11 had nothing to do with the Sunis or any Jihadi terrorists at all; even the Saudis had very little to do with it. It was a joint operation by the CIA and Mossad. One of its main objectives was to demonize the ME countries, and justify US /NATO aggression against them. They planned to take out 7 nations in 5 years, according to general Leslie Clark.

  • peter mcloughlin

    Historically, nations act in what serves their interests. Western involvement in the Middle East has been primarily about energy security and commerce. They seek to justify it through different means, including legalistic sophistry. The real danger of the US-Iran confrontation is consequences that lead to no alternative but escalation. One scenario, a Tehran 79 type hostage stand-off in Baghdad where President Trump (in an election year) could find himself with no choice but up the ante. The spector of humiliation and defeat convincing him the only hope is to persevere. But that could be an illusion, moving deeper into a sequence of events leading unstoppably to the real danger in the Middle East – confrontation with Russia. Many say it couldn’t happen. History suggests otherwise. Living by the law might be the future: learning from history the way to create that future.

  • GMJ

    Yes, a brilliant summary. Thank you. Exactly what sane people think. The Bethlehem Doctrine is nonsense in law. An open justification to commit murder which is rejected by virtually all lawyers. You may be sure that Americans will die in the future because of the Soleimani strike. WIth “Americans” will also be NATO members, GMJ

  • Curmudgeon

    A good article, except you appear to buy into the official conspiracy theory of 9/11, which has been thoroughly shredded. My wife and I happened to be vacation that week, and watched it unfold live on tv.. We thought it was BS at the time, and nothing that has come forward since that day has altered that, only reinforced it. The BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7, twenty five minutes before it happened. That alone should make people suspicious, irrespective of the literally hundreds of other holes in the official narrative.
    Mr. Murray, you have to understand that 90% of the American populace is incapable of understanding that other countries may not want to be like the US. Ii encountered this in the early 70s traveling through Europe. The complaints about food, transportation, service, accommodations, etc. were, regardless of age, constant: it’s not like home. After weeks of hearing this, I lost it in a hostel in Germany, telling someone my age ‘Well, you aren’t at home, get over it.’ The look of puzzlement and lack of response told me all I needed to know.

  • Greg Maybury

    Hello Craig, I’m going to be in Stirling from the 16th-23rd for a writer’s conference. I understand there is an Assange rally in Edinburgh on or around about the 25th., and that you will be speaking at this rally. I’d a) like to attend and at least meet up with you there and b) I’m prepared to speak at the conference. I will send you a draft of what I would like to say if yourself and the organisers are interested and the logistics allow. Pls LMK ASAP. Best, GM.

  • Kim Nguyen

    Why no mention of the actual diplomatic mission that brought Soleimani to Iraq on Jan.3,the fact that he was to meet with Adel Abdul Mahdi to give Iran’s response to a Saudi proposal?

  • Michael Ford

    I cant completely dispute your logic in questioning the legitimacy of this act but I did not read in your article any motive for killing this individual that varies from the one given by our government. What could the true motive have been if not to prevent attacks on US assets and people?

    • Wikikettle

      Michael Ford. Would the US tolerate being blockaded and prevented from trading with other countries by Iran ? Would the US allow Iran stationing their bases in Mexico and Canada ? Your US Exceptionalism re its ‘Assets’ and ‘People’ is morally bankrupt in the eyes of most people and nations of the world today. The US boasted it talked softly but carried a big stick. Today the US has a President that is honest in his barbarity and greed. this is what the deep state and establishment hates about him. Its wild and barbaric wars now threaten its own allies. An inevitable pivot point in its decline and fall. In that great scene in the film ‘Shane’ – Alan Ladd confronts Jack Palance playing Wilson – ” Low Down Yankee Lier ” on you tube, if some one could post the link please.

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      Michael Ford
      Their true motive might be to hinder further attacks on their proxy terrorist forces, as revenge for the defeat of ISIS, to terrorise those who wish to assert the right of Iraq to decide which foreign armys may enter Iraq and to spark of a war between America and Iran which serves Israel’s interests.

1 7 8 9

Comments are closed.