Svenska Epoch TimesAccording to the UN Charter, military force is in principle prohibited between states – with two exceptions: self-defense after an armed attack or a mandate from the UN Security Council.
Several media outlets and international law experts believe that the attacks on Iran do not meet these criteria and can therefore be seen as a violation of international law.
But the question many are asking is also another: who else would have acted?
How many people have already fallen victim to the Iranian regime during the protests is still unclear, but figures of tens of thousands of deaths are stated in several reports. At the same time, many more are imprisoned or live under constant risk of repression.
If Iran is perceived as a long-term threat – and the UN is locked up by the veto of the great powers – who will act? Is it reasonable to wait for an international mandate that may never come?
Now that the US and Israel have already intervened, the question may no longer be just whether they had the right side – but what happens now.
How do the Iranians themselves actually view the support they have received from outside? Do they see the intervention as a chance for change – or as a new threat to the country’s stability?
And if power in Iran one day changes: what might a transition to a more democratic government look like?
For feedback or comments on the program, email us at podden@epochtimes.se – and don’t forget to specify which podcast and episode it concerns.
