The recent coordinated attack by the United States and Israel against Iran, which resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has reignited debates about the limits of imperial power, the legality of unilateral military actions, and the role of propaganda in legitimizing international violence. The claim of “preventive attacks” as justification for military action raises serious legal and ethical concerns, especially in light of International Law.
The fallacy of the “preventive attack” has increasingly been used by military powers to justify offensive actions under the pretext of averting future threats. However, this doctrine is highly controversial. According to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the use of force is only permitted in the case of legitimate self-defense against an actual and imminent armed attack. International jurisprudence, such as in the “Oil Platforms” case (Iran v. United States) adjudicated by the International Court of Justice, reinforces that self-defense cannot be invoked on the basis of hypothetical or potential threats. The doctrine of the preventive attack, therefore, lacks robust legal support and represents a dangerous erosion of international norms.
Iran’s history is marked by external interventions that have profoundly shaped its political trajectory. In 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and Britain’s MI6, after his attempt to nationalize Iranian oil. The coup resulted in the installation of the authoritarian regime of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled with an iron hand until he was overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The role of propaganda and the Western media and the paradox of “imposed democracy”
The media coverage of the recent attacks on Iran reveals a worrying trend: the normalization of state violence when perpetrated by Western powers. The rhetoric of leaders like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, who justify military actions on the basis of existential threats or in the name of “freedom,” is amplified by media outlets that rarely question the legality or consequences of those actions.
The idea that one can replace an authoritarian regime with another more “friendly” to Western interests, even by force, is a contradiction in terms. The external imposition of political models, without popular legitimacy, tends to generate instability and resentment. The case of Iraq, invaded in 2003 under false allegations of weapons of mass destruction, is a clear example: the fall of Saddam Hussein did not bring stable democracy, but rather a prolonged cycle of violence and state fragmentation.
The intention of the United States and their little kid Israel is not concern for the Iranian people; they want to replace one dictatorship with another, and this is evident to the world. The basic idea is: “there is no problem with a dictatorship as long as it works according to my interests.” In this way imperialism tries to regain some prestige. And this would not be the first time. They have already replaced a democratic regime with a dictator, so this rhetoric of the Empire makes no sense. What has astonished me is the rhetoric of the Western media validating the absurdities uttered by the Israeli butcher Benjamin Netanyahu and by Jeffrey Epstein’s friend Donald Trump.
History teaches us that empires in decline tend to act more aggressively, seeking to reaffirm their hegemony through force. Critical vigilance by civil society and respect for International Law are essential to contain this escalation and preserve the possibilities for peace.
