Manufactured Threats and Legal Violations: Parallels Between Iraq's WMD Lies and Israel's Strikes on Iran

on

 


Since 2023, Israel has conducted a campaign of military strikes against Iranian targets across the Middle East. These actions, carried out without international legal sanction, echo an earlier era of manufactured threats: the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, launched on false assertions about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In both cases, alleged security threats were used to justify pre-emptive military aggression that violated the United Nations Charter, undermined international law, and served broader strategic goals of U.S. regional hegemony.

Legal Foundations and Violations

The United Nations Charter (1945) explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state unless authorized by the Security Council or undertaken in self-defence against an armed attack.[1] Israel's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, military personnel, and allies in Syria and Iraq have not been justified with clear evidence of imminent threats and lack the legal legitimacy of UN approval.

Similarly, the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S., U.K., and Australia was not authorized by the UN Security Council. Then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the war illegal, stating unequivocally that it "was not in conformity with the UN Charter".[2]

Weapons of Mass Deception: Iraq 2003 vs Iran 2023–2025

The U.S. and U.K. case for invading Iraq relied heavily on claims that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs and large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. These claims were based on flawed and manipulated intelligence, later discredited by multiple investigations, including the UK’s Chilcot Report (2016) and the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Report (2004).[3][4]

Today, a similar narrative is being advanced against Iran. Despite repeated inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has confirmed that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles, though troubling, have not been diverted to weapons programs,[5] Israel continues to assert that Iran is on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. These claims are not substantiated by IAEA findings. Moreover, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa (religious edict) explicitly prohibiting the development and use of nuclear weapons.[6]

Preemptive War and Regional Destabilisation

Just as Iraq was invaded under the banner of pre-emption, Israel’s strikes are being framed as a form of "preventive self-defence." However, under international law, pre-emptive strikes are only justified when a threat is imminent, which legal experts argue has not been demonstrated in Israel’s actions.[7] Professor Ben Saul of the University of Sydney notes that Australia’s support for Israel’s self-defence claim contradicts its supposed adherence to a rules-based international order.[8]

The 2003 Iraq War unleashed chaos, with over 200,000 civilian deaths and the rise of ISIS in its aftermath. Similarly, Israel’s campaign has already contributed to the erosion of regional stability, particularly in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.



Iran’s Axis of Resistance and the U.S.-Israel Strategy

Following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani by the U.S. in 2020—a move widely condemned as illegal under international law—Iran doubled down on its regional alliances, forming what is often called the "Axis of Resistance". This includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthi movement in Yemen.[9]

This network served as a strategic deterrent in the absence of Iranian nuclear capability. But by 2024, a coordinated U.S.-Israeli campaign had systematically degraded this deterrent. The assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah,[10] Israel’s strikes on Syrian military convoys,[11] and U.S. airstrikes on Yemeni missile platforms[12] all contributed to weakening Iran’s regional leverage.

Nuclear Hypocrisy and the Suppressed Middle East NWFZ

Iran has repeatedly called for a Middle East Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ), a proposal supported by most UN member states but consistently blocked in practice—largely due to U.S. protection of Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.[13] Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the region and remains outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a status tolerated by Western powers.

This nuclear hypocrisy mirrors the Iraq war narrative: while Iraq had no WMDs and was invaded, Israel retains a secret nuclear arsenal without accountability. Iran, despite being a signatory to the NPT and subject to rigorous inspections, is treated as a rogue actor.

Cui Bono? U.S. Interests in Israel’s Campaign

As with Iraq, where U.S. military-industrial, energy, and geopolitical interests shaped the decision to go to war, Israel’s current aggression toward Iran aligns with American objectives:

  1. Regional Hegemony: Weakening Iran undermines a key challenger to U.S.-backed monarchies and Israel, solidifying U.S. dominance.

  2. Arms Sales: Heightened tensions boost U.S. weapons exports to Gulf allies and Israel, benefiting American defence contractors.

  3. Control over Energy Corridors: Destabilizing Iran weakens its influence over the Strait of Hormuz and the energy politics of Central Asia.

These outcomes are consistent with neoconservative doctrines that viewed regime change and military primacy as essential to securing U.S. influence.[14]

Conclusion

The echoes of the Iraq WMD deception in the current campaign against Iran are loud and alarming. In both cases, intelligence was politicized, international law was flouted, and human lives became expendable in the service of larger geopolitical goals. Israel’s military strikes, supported tacitly or overtly by the United States, represent a continuation of this deeply troubling pattern.

To prevent history from repeating itself in bloodier and more dangerous ways, international institutions and civil society must demand adherence to the law—not power—as the basis of global security.



References

[1] United Nations Charter, Articles 2(4) and 51.

[2] BBC News. "Iraq War Illegal, Says Annan." 16 Sept. 2004. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

[3] The Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot Report), UK Government, 2016.

[4] U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," 2004.

[5] IAEA. "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)." Reports, 2023–2025.

[6] Khamenei.ir. Supreme Leader's official statements on nuclear weapons.

[7] Gray, Christine. International Law and the Use of Force. Oxford University Press, 2018.

[8] Saul, Ben. "Australia's claim that Israel has a right to defend itself against Iran is inconsistent with our rules-based order." The Guardian, 16 June 2025.

[9] Esfandiary, Dina. "The Axis of Resistance: Iranian Strategy and Regional Proxy Forces." International Crisis Group, 2023.

[10] AP News. "Israel Kills Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut Airstrike," 28 Sept. 2024.

[11] Reuters. "Israel strikes Iranian positions in Syria," multiple reports 2023–2025.

[12] Al Jazeera. "US strikes Houthi missile sites in Yemen," 2024.

[13] Arms Control Association. "WMD-Free Middle East Proposal at a Glance." https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/wmd-free-middle-east-proposal-glance

[14] Kristol, William & Kagan, Robert. "Rebuilding America's Defenses," Project for the New American Century, 2000.

Comments

Post a Comment