It is worth noting these protocols this morning:
One key clause addresses the issue of attacking nuclear sites, and says:
Those looking for a let-out might claim section 2 of this Article provides it:
What is very clear is that the plants the US attacked overnight did not meet the criteria noted.
The conclusion is obvious. The US attacks on Iran breached the Geneva Convention of 1949. They were illegal.
Trump might like to claim Iran is a terror threat, but any country conducting illegal warfare most certainly meets that criterion. The USA does do so.
My thanks to Dr David Lowry for reminding me of this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] first, as I have already noted, is to note that such an act is almost certainly illegal and should not, therefore, have happened. […]
This is theatre on the part of Trump and the US striking previously bombed and emptied sites. You might want to take a look at Ritter’s Rant ‘Where’s the beef?’ on his YouTube channel (Scott Ritter). Trump is seeking to save face and Iran will likely not retaliate against US assets. It can, however, continue to pursue its campaign against Israel which it is doing with increasing effectiveness whilst exhausting their defences despite what you might read in the Guardian.
Listening to Trump’s announcement was simply fascism in action – every accusation towards Iran was just about the same thing the U.S. was – it was a ‘Gishing Gallup’ masquerading as a serious press conference.
Politics is dead. I’d like to offer my congratulations to the American public – well done.
Suckers.
The USA signed the Protocol on its introduction – but has never ratified it. Iran and Pakistan have equally never ratified it.
Israel, of course, never even signed it, along with India and Turkey.
Genuinely, how can you hold a sovereign state to account for not following a Convention that the world knows they do not support?
You mean moral force and international law requires the consent of those intent on breaking it? Really?
Well, yes.
From Wikipedia on the Geneva Conventions:
“Common Article 2 relating to international armed conflict (IAC)
“This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all the cases of international armed conflict (IAC), where at least one of the warring nations has ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
“The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. […]
“The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations. […]”
And the third point, being the most relevant:
“**The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation “accepts and applies the provisions” of the Conventions.**”
Please don’t shoot the messenger. I cannot comprehend war, let alone the idea that human beings authorise other humans to disregard our common humanity. And they are obeyed.
His chief of intelligence once again reiterated their official view that Iran is nowhere near making a nuclear weapon.
King Donald said “she’s wrong” – a statement from the lack of intelligence chief himself.
I have some doubts that the targets were all destroyed. As is explained here, the real target is unlikely to be directly under the point of impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TriASB-F5UY
The Iranians are going to hide the results. John Bolton, a long time ‘hawk’ on Iran even suggests the work could be transferred to North Korea. That is worrying.
In my study of history, I think many of the actions of US governments have not taken account of long term consequences. It is not because they don’t have good analysts. It is more IMHO due the way they do politics. And secondly, their worship of technology. (agent orange ? )
Imagine how Churchill would have reacted, if Britain had been bombed by Russia, and told there was worse to come if we didn’t make peace with Germany. Iran is an old country with a proud history. The likelihood that it will become obedient because bombed by Trump is vanishingly small, I think, even if some diplomatic deceits are arranged.
https://stoptrump.org.uk/petition-trump-iran/
Unlikely to achieve anything, but at least it’s a gesture.
Hi Mr Murphy,
The plan to attack Iran has been in the works since at least 2001, probably before that. On the show Democracy Now, back in 2007, General Wesley Clark revealed that the USA planned to attack seven countries in five years.
https://youtu.be/Nv87ekPeIuk?si=FMMoU9bW9skUP8R6
Thank you for your good work. All the best to you and yours.
I am totally against Trump and Netanyahus attacks on Iran. However Article 56 (above) only cites ‘nuclear electricity generation’ as far as I’m aware none of the sites targeted ( enrichment plant and a research reactor) could be categorised as such. Still no justification for the attacks.