2 ms·

I find it hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight when its head of state, who unilaterally started this conflict — and proudly so —

I find it hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight when its head of state, who unilaterally started this conflict — and proudly so — recently went on record, along with his Secretary of State, to assert that there is no international law; certainly none that applies to him; and that the US is only bound by his "own morality". E.g., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-international-law https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/trump-power-...

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> hard to give that argument (were it to come from the US) any weight If Iran hadn't engaged in war crimes since the 1980s, including but not limited to restraining itself from supporting Hamas, before and after its October 7th attacks, chances are it wouldn't be at war right now. That isn't a satisfying answer. But part of why we have these norms is to reduce the sort of cross-contamination of belligerence that occured in the lead-up to each of the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII and then the Cold War.