The Aftermath of the War: Implications for the Stakeholders

The Iran-Israel-US war, which has “officially” come to an end, will have wide-ranging ramifications for the different stakeholders involved.

Pranay Kumar Shome

On February 28, the United States of America and Israel launched large-scale attacks on several targets across every nook and cranny of Iran, a sovereign country. Three months down the line, the war has ‘officially’ come to an end with the signing of a ‘Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)’ between Iran and the US. The announcement, which took place on the eve of American President Donald Trump’s 80^th birthday, is supposed to be his ‘gift’ to the Iranian people in general and the world community in particular.

It will be interesting to see what exactly transpires as the 60-day wait-and-watch period under the peace deal commences

But it is anything but a gift. Over the past three months, the world watched, with bated breath, every single shot being fired by all sides; it saw the naked aggression and imperialistic designs of Israel and its ally America.

In this context, it becomes necessary to analyze the implications of the war for the stakeholders.

International Law under Severe Strain

International law, born out of centuries of deliberations among thinkers, nations, and communities, has, of late, come under severe strain. The unilateral actions of Israel and the United States of America not only exposed how imperialism is still alive and kicking, but they also contributed to the violation of several canons of international law.

This is evident from the wanton violation of Article 2(4). This provision is the cornerstone of international law, which requires states to not only refrain from the use of force against member states but also requires countries to use peaceful means to resolve disputes. In addition, Israel and the United States also illegally weaponized Article 2(7) whereby they sought to portray that the military actions they had taken against Iran were essentially a ‘domestic matter’ with no right of the United Nations to intervene.

Further, during the war, Israel and the United States of America rode roughshod over several provisions of the Geneva Convention and its protocols. To make matters worse, they also violated Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention pertaining to civilians. The American airstrike at a school in Minab, which claimed the lives of 166 innocent Iranian children and other civilians, is the grimmest reminder that America and Israel don’t really care when it comes to protecting civilian lives.

These instances of violation by America and Israel highlight that both countries not only disregard international law, but are also reflecting something far more insidious—bending the rules of the game when it suits them. Thus, for the world, particularly for the countries of the Global South, this war is a lesson that they cannot expect the Global North to be guardian protectors of international law; it is up to the South to protect this legal regime.

America’s violation of international law, in the process, created a lot of discomfiture among its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Fissures in NATO

Alliances are supposed to perform collective goals. Only when every member of the grouping contributes equally on a matter will the rationale behind the alliance’s existence be justified. But the war exposed how NATO, despite all of its much-vaunted claims of being the ‘custodian of the security of the Euro-Atlantic region,’ has fallen flat.

Throughout the course of the war, deep divisions within the alliance came to the fore. This was particularly evident when Spain, Germany, France, and Italy, which were supposed to be ‘iron-clad’ partners of America, refused to participate in the mess America and Israel created. Even the United Kingdom, which has often spoken of the enduring Anglo-Saxon bonds it maintains with America, pushed back against America’s extrajudicial and wrongful demands.

This, however, tells one thing: notwithstanding the ‘collective strength’ the military alliance projects, it is essentially a paper tiger, with allies themselves not able to agree with the many needs and desires of their most powerful member.

An Unresolved Question

The unveiled peace deal between Iran and the US claims to have ended the war. But a key issue continues to linger on—what about Lebanon?

Israel has made it very clear that not only is it not beholden to America, but it will continue to take punitive action against Lebanon. This matter assumes seriousness as Israel is currently in control of large swathes of southern Lebanon, which it occupied during its illegal invasion of the country during the war. What makes matters even worse is the larger design behind Israel’s actions—it seeks to capture and annex all the territories it needs to fulfill its religious goal of a Greater Israel, even if that project comes at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Lebanese people.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the warmongering head of the Israeli state, seems hell-bent on pushing forward with this evil design, paying scant regard not only to humanitarian voices but also in this quest of acquiring more territory, also disregarding its staunchest ally, America. He has declared that Israel will remain in control of that Lebanese territory.

The war, therefore, has been a painful episode for the world. It will be interesting to see what exactly transpires as the 60-day wait-and-watch period under the peace deal commences.

Pranay Kumar Shome, a research analyst who is a PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India