Western governments’ abandonment of the very system of international law which they created was embodied in a tweet from the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which sought to justify the illegal Israeli attack on Iran as “Targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities”.
The former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Mohamed ElBaradei, was left to point out that far from a justification, it is specifically against international law to target nuclear facilities.
He refers to Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. While we are on the subject, you might also wish to see article 54:
It is worth noting that the exception on destruction of foodstuffs at Article 5 refers to the right of a country which is defending against invasion, not which is invading another country. It means that it is not illegal for a country to destroy crops and stocks of its own, on its own territory. Which is to say a scorched-earth policy against an invader is legal. It does not give the right to refuse supplies to a population under occupation.
The German justification was of course just part of a chorus of Western support for the Israeli attack on Iran, in which numerous Western leaders all parroted a co-ordinated line about “Israel’s right of self-defence”, even as Israel conducted an entirely illegal and unprovoked attack on Iran during peace talks.
There are dozens of examples, but I give you the openly genocidal von der Leyen as one:
Spoke with President @Isaac_Herzog concerning the escalating situation in the Middle East.
I reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself and protect its people. At the same time, preserving regional stability is vital.
I urge all parties to act with maximum restraint and work…
— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) June 13, 2025
On Thursday, before Israel attacked Iran, I attended the UN General Assembly debate on Palestine. This had limited utility as it mandated no specific measures and did not suspend Israel from the United Nations, the one truly useful action the General Assembly has the power to implement.
The motion called for an immediate ceasefire and for states to take “all necessary measures”, but that is the last we shall hear of it. It passed by 150 votes to 12, with opposition from the United States, its de facto colonies and the small far-right collection of Argentina, Paraguay etc.
But there was one interesting point in the Statements, known as Explanations of Vote, of the national delegations. These too were very routine, with Arab states that have not the slightest intention of actually doing anything, condemning Israel and western nations all launching blood-curdling condemnations of Hamas (yes, really, that was still their priority, 60,000 dead Palestinian civilians later).
But the UK explanation of vote made one point that absolutely nobody else made. It stuck out like a sore thumb. The British Ambassador to the UN stated that
“While the UK voted in favour of this resolution, we wish to clarify that our long-standing position remains that there is no legal obligation on states to ensure respect for international law by third parties.”
When the EOV was published, this part of the statement was bolstered by a reference to Common Article 1 of the Geneva Convention. I do not recall her actually saying this and it is not in my notes.
Common Article 1 (so called because it is present in every one of the Geneva Conventions) reads:
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
So why did the UK, and the UK alone, say that it is not responsible for ensuring that other parties comply with international law, adding later a specific reference to the Geneva Conventions?
It is perfectly simple. Starmer and Lammy are terrified about future charges of complicity in Israeli war crimes. So the UK, only, feels it necessary to emphasise that they do not bear legal responsibility for Israel’s actions.
They claim they are not responsible for what Israel did with the supplies of UK munitions, which the UK increased to fuel the genocide.
They claim they are not responsible for what Israel did with the targeting information they gave Israel on a daily basis from RAF Akrotiri flights over Gaza.
They claim they are not responsible for the Israeli use of weapons flown in through the UK and Akrotiri.
They claim they are not responsible for use of the F-35 jets attacking Iran now, which they continue to supply with UK-manufactured spare parts.
We simply do not yet know what else they have done to support Israel based on the secret UK-Israeli defence treaty, but whatever it is, Starmer and Lammy want to make absolutely plain that the UK had no responsibility to prevent Israel from committing war crimes.
The claim that this is longstanding British policy is of course a rather frivolous bit of gaslighting. Indeed given that this argument runs completely counter to the doctrine of “the responsibility to protect” – of which the UK was the leading international proponent – it is simple nonsense.
[As it happens I always opposed the “responsibility to protect” argument because it is used as an excuse for Imperialism, cf. the destruction of Libya.]
The Genocide Convention in fact explicitly does create a duty on states to prevent genocide by third parties.
Article I of the Genocide Convention reads:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
So the declaration by Starmer and Lammy of not bearing responsibility really does not wash. The interesting thing is that they felt compelled to make it.
The evening after the debate I attended receptions hosted by both the British Ambassador and then by the Russian Ambassador, and I spoke to a large number of Ambassadors to the UN. Of course we discussed the debate, and everybody had noticed both the extraordinary and unusual addition to the UK statement and its motive.
They all specifically realised it was an effort to back away from responsibility for complicity in Israeli crimes.
I understand and share your disappointment at the collapse of international law. But I can tell you that the prospect of eventual retribution at the Hague still terrifies Starmer and Lammy.
Netanyahu’s desperate gamble in attacking Iran is an attempt to force the USA to join the war on Israel’s behalf, and to prevent peace talks.
It is of course simply untrue that Iran was about to produce a nuclear weapon. Every Spring a CIA-led US intelligence exercise formally reviews the situation, and the firm position of Five Eyes intelligence remains that Iran genuinely was not seeking to make a nuclear weapon.
I hope that Iran learns the lesson of Southern Lebanon. There, over many months, Israeli air superiority enabled them to substantially degrade missile systems of various resistance factions. Israel does – not least because of the traitors ruling Jordan and Syria – have air superiority over Iran. In a long war of attrition, Israeli bombing raids could do real damage to Iranian capabilities.
Iran’s best strategy would be to view this as the existential crisis, and seriously unload its missile capacity on Israel without restraint. The period of measured tit-for-tat reprisals is at an end. The decision of nuclear-armed Pakistan to stand behind Iran was extremely helpful. These are early days in the Israeli-Iranian war. I do not sense any popular enthusiasm in the USA to be involved. Even the mainstream American media is characterising Iranian attacks as “retaliation” and the Israeli victim card is no longer as Platinum as it used to be here in the USA.
Germany has been refuelling Israeli jets en route to attack Iran, and the UK may also have been doing so. Starmer and Macron have both expressed determination to defend Israel with their own military but both would face massive popular resistance.
We wait to see what happens next. But having lived through vicious Israeli bombardment of Beirut, having been menaced by drones in the Bekaa Valley, having stood on the line at Kfar Kila while a twelve-year-old boy was shot standing next to my producer, having witnessed 100,000 Lebanese homes destroyed, I have no sympathy left for Tel Aviv.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
There’s this.
“Seymour Hersh’s sources claim that the U.S. will strike during this weekend:
This is a report on what is most likely to happen in Iran, as early as this weekend, according to Israeli insiders and American officials I’ve relied upon for decades. It will entail heavy American bombing. I have vetted this report with a longtime US official in Washington, who told me that all will be “under control” if Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “departs.” Just how that might happen, short of his assassination, is not known. There has been a great deal of talk about American firepower and targets inside Iran, but little practical thinking, as far I can tell, about how to remove a revered religious leader with an enormous following.”
And this.
“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” said the president in his statement, which was read aloud by press secretary Karoline Leavitt from the White House briefing room.”
Why way will Trump go.
Why wee? We wait. Maybe will we see him play a trump card?
Would Trump need to go nuclear to bust Iran’s deep bunkers?
“Conventional bunker busters are unlikely to be sufficient to knock out Iran’s deeply buried enrichment bunkers. The U.S. would have to go nuclear. The B61-11 nuclear earth penetrator has a yield of 300 to 400 kilotons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15 and 21 kt. Using it would set a precedence that the no one will want.
Iran’s Foreign Minister is in Geneva to meet with the UK, Germany and France. There is nothing to expect from this. President Macron of France, who years ago condemned Trump for leaving the JCPOA agreement with Iran, has now adopted Trump’s position. He is demanding zero enrichment, limits on Iran’s ballistic missiles and limits on its support for resistance forces. A farce as all these points are well known Iranian redlines.”
Pathetically weak from the UK, France and Germany to not defend the JCPOA as cosignees. Why don’t they tell Trump he’s acting beyond his powers, by trying to force new unilateral terms on Iran? I’d wager Iran would return to the JCPOA and give up its enriched uranium were that offered. The US and Trump are behaving atrociously.
Recent history timeline : Iran signed the JCPO along with the P5+1 group (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), along with the European Union. They complied with its terms (IAEA record); Trump ripped it up (because he saw it as Obama’s deal), and now issues an ultimatum to Iran to accept worse terms or else he’ll bomb them after giving nuclear-armed Israel permission to attack.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable way to conduct international diplomacy?
Goose, I don’t think anyone on here would act the way that Trump, Netanyahu, Starmer, Macron, or any of the others who are psychotic. Trump and Netanyahu do not have any intention of using international diplomacy.
It’s obviously because it’s such a farce that the Iranian Foreign Minister rushed to the Hotel Intercontinental in Geneva to start negotiations, which Iran currently rejects with the US.
How’s this for poetic justice – check out the piccy.
“The fragment of an Iranian missile hit a Ukrainian café”
https://nitter.poast.org/GlobeWarReport/status/1936085971101270407#m
I imagine Israel and Ukraine will both surrender immediately.
Pears Morgaine.
Your not that far off the truth – take Ukraine – Trump has his hands full with Iran, and Ukraine will suffer for this – with Russian attacks on Kiev and across the combat zone – that will eventually see the Neo-Nazi Ukrainian forces spent – and what’s left will lack proper fighting equipment, The EU Neo-Nazi supporters such as Kallas, von der Leyen, and Merz etc, might be able to prop up the Neo-Nazi dictatorship up, for a wee while longer but the outcome is inevitable. Then the Neo-Nazi’s will turn their anger on Europe and the USA, already the Neo- Nazi forces in Ukraine are mercenaries, guns for hire and terrorists – I fully expect this to increase after Ukraine falls.
As for Israel – its in big trouble and only has the threat of nukes left, that’s why Netanyahu is desperate to rope Trump into the fray with Iran – in a long drawn out affair Israel will lose if the USA doesn’t intervene. As Ukraine falls and the Neo-Nazi’s turn their anger to Europe and the USA – so if Israel falls, the Zio-Nazi’s will blame other nations and they’ve already spoken of implementing the Samson Option further afield.
Nothing will happen to the ‘Neo-Nazi’ regime in Ukraine because it doesn’t exist, except in troll propaganda. If Russian forces do occupy all of Ukraine the war will continue as partisan activity to eventually wear the Russian occupiers down. It might take ten years as it did with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan but Ukraine has been preparing for this scenario since 2022 and it would be easily affordable for the UK and EU to support in terms of weapons and training.
I can’t imagine either Iran or Israel surrendering, this will go on until some kind of truce is negotiated. The problem at the moment is that those countries in a position to pressure either side are instead fuelling the fires. What would happen if Israel surrendered? Would Iran send an occupation force to face the reconstituted Stern Gangs? Would the US/EU be happy about Iran taking possession of Israel’s nuclear weapons and supporting technology? I doubt it.
“Nothing will happen to the ‘Neo-Nazi’ regime in Ukraine because it doesn’t exist, except in troll propaganda”
The prospect for the regime in Ukraine is the same whether it is Neo-Nazi or not. It may not be Nazi, but it is certainly a nasty and very corrupt tyranny.
.”What would happen if Israel surrendered? ”
Outside your fantasy world, what would most likely happen is what happened last time Israel lost a major war, unless the US
invadessteps in to restore order.A Freudian Slip – watch her tell the truth.
“U.S. envoy to UN Dorothy Shea:
“Israel’s government spread chaos, terror, and suffering in the region…”
She then quickly corrects herself, saying she meant Iran’s government, but the damage was done already.”
https://nitter.poast.org/MonitorX99800/status/1936084591829201045#m
re: Iran/Germany
Germany zero points.
Another pretty exchange from the press conference of the German State Department.
As posted by reporter Florian Warweg:
https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=134750
“(…)
Excerpt from the minutes of the government press conference of 16 June 2025:
Question Warweg
Tulsi Gabbard, director of the Joint Intelligence Community, stated at the Senate hearing on March 25 of this year that, according to the unanimous assessment of all 18 US intelligence agencies, Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If the US intelligence agencies unanimously assumed at the end of March that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb, but both the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor justified Israel’s attacks as preemptive strikes, I would be interested to know what alternative information the German Foreign Minister and the Chancellor have that contradicts this US assessment.
Wagner (AA)
Mr. Warweg, we expressly disagree with the premises you raise in your question. But let me perhaps note that the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated very clearly on May 31 that Iran is demonstrably failing to comply with its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement. I think that is the basis on which we assess the Iranian nuclear program.
Additional Warweg
But, to be honest, that wasn’t an answer to my question. I had said that the US intelligence services had concluded a month and a half ago that no nuclear bomb was being built. Israel attacked Iran, arguing that there was an imminent danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb, and both the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister defended these attacks. The US intelligence services say: No, that wasn’t planned. Then the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister, if they defend it that way, must have other information. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which you mentioned, also spoke of irregularities in the reporting, but by no means of saying that Iran was close to having a nuclear bomb.
Wagner (AA)
Mr Warweg, I have expressly stated that we do not agree with the premise of your question.
Supplementary question Warweg
What premise?
Wagner (AA)
The premise that you just laid out at length in your question. ‑ I said that the competent international authority, namely the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated very clearly in a recent resolution that Iran is not complying with its commitments regarding its nuclear program.
Shout Warweg
(without microphone, acoustically incomprehensible)
Chairwoman Buschow
Now it’s time for the next questioner to speak, Mr. Warweg. The list is indeed long.
Shout Warweg
Sorry, but if I address two people and only one answers…
Deputy government spokesman Hille
Mr. Warweg, we are all here for the Federal Government. All of my colleagues sitting here represent the Federal Government. I have nothing to add to what Mr. Wagner has just said.
Shout Warweg
Does that mean that Mr. Wadephul now also speaks for the Chancellor?
Chairwoman Buschow
Mr. Warweg, I’m putting you back on the list. Perhaps you could give other colleagues a chance to ask a question as well. Now it’s the next colleague’s turn.
(…)”
Isn’t Herr Warweg German ?
Yes
Re. ” Iran is not complying with its commitments regarding its nuclear programme”
As most people know (?) the issue the IAEA is talking about is, some unexplained contamination detected, I believe, several decades ago.
And for this the west wants Iran to be destroyed.
The English government is to ban the group Palestine Action – making it a criminal offence to support them – of course the English government has no problem with you – if you support the proscribed terrorist head choppers (HTS) – or the genocide committing Zionists, or the Neo-Nazi dictatorship in Ukraine.
Those as naive as I am may like to look at the most recent (26 June) number of the London review of books. A letter, in response to a recent article about Palantir and Anduril points out the importance of Maintenance, Repair and Operations services (MRO) for military contractors ‘Selling arms is big business, but maintaining it keeps Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Rafael and others in clover.’
There is also a chilling Diary about a Global Town Hall in a Gulf State, which shows how BAE and other wealthy British and American companies who must not be offended operate there.
This has nothing to do with Nuclear Anything.
It has everything to do with ‘ Regime Collapse ‘ and not Regime Change.
The idea that two countries who couldn’t occupy a Phone Box properly never mind
a country close to the size of Europe will not be Regime Changed by either.
92 million people live in Iran and around 17million live in greater Tehran.
So Israel , who kept getting chased out of Southern Lebanon by a much less powerful
military group think they are going to dance their way into Iran and even worse – that the US
troops will dance in there alongside them without a glove being laid on them?
Yes the US can Bunker Bust with bombs that only penetrate to about 80 metres but these nuclear
installations are 800 metres below ground in between rocks.
Of course you can drop one and then another on top of the original hole etc but that takes a lot of hanging
about and re-fuelling.
Thereby making you slow – ish delivery aircraft sitting Ducks.
No boots on the ground means no Regime Change – simple as that for myself.
Trump has ignored Tulsi Gabbard and the CIA report that Iran does not have the capability
(at the moment ) to make a Nuke Warhead.
More to the point before the Israel attack it did not want a Nuke Capability.
If you were cynical you would think that Israel’s attack was to provoke Iran into wanting Nukes.
If I were Israel I would be careful what I wished for because some people have said that theoretically
Iran could make Nukes in less than one month – maybe less than two weeks.
Of course it all depends on how this deliberate stupidity goes and the fact is up to now is that this has turned
into a Logistics War.
If Trump listens to his advisers he had better take note that the Israeli Defences are running out of Defensive
Missiles.
Iran appears to be de-stocking with old but less expensive and sophisticated missiles interspersed with some
very big missiles indeed.
Big hits are being made in Haifa ( a key port) and Tel – Aviv.
The bad news for the Israelis is that even if the US went a ‘ Bunkerbustin’ that would not stop Iran from firing off
more sophisticated missiles the way of Tel – Aviv.
And for the US the fearful chance that some of their Boys will be killed carrying out Trump’s Mission.
Either at the Bases or up in the sky supposedly after gaining total control of Iranian Airspace.
I hear that Israel has nor ventured anywhere in the sky to test their own boastful theory.
If Trump goes for it then that boast will be tested.
All down to Trump now and if it all gets out of hand ( which it will) the Western Economies will never be the same
again and of course the poorer economies will suffer the worst as usual.
Here we go.