‘War crime’ as political smear
The article discusses the ongoing debate surrounding U.S. military actions against Iran, particularly the legality of targeting dual-use infrastructure. Critics have labeled these actions as potential war crimes, while proponents argue they are necessary for military objectives. Historical comparisons are drawn to past military campaigns, highlighting the complexities of international law in warfare.
- ▪The U.S. is considering resuming bombing campaigns against Iran to compel military and political capitulation.
- ▪Critics have accused the U.S. of committing war crimes in its military operations against Iran.
- ▪The legality of targeting dual-use infrastructure, such as power plants and bridges, is supported by military law.
- ▪Historical military campaigns, like NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, are referenced to illustrate the complexities of defining war crimes.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Any stalemate in negotiations to end both Iranian aggression in the Strait of Hormuz and their nuclear program should warrant the resumption of the bombing campaign against Iran. Greater destruction of Iran’s infrastructure may be needed to compel its military and political capitulation. Before the ceasefire, the hyperbolic rhetoric in vogue among the administration’s critics was that the United States’s bombing operation against Iran, “Operation Epic Fury,” had crossed, or was about to cross, a legal line into “war crimes.” What this assertion belies is an appeasement ideology masquerading as sanctimonious condemnation.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
