April 22, 2024
In the early
hours of April 19, Israel carried out its anticipated response to Iran’s April
13 aerial attack on Israel.
Though the
details are not known at the time of this writing, Israel appears, like Iran,
to have done what it felt it needed to do to send the message it needed to send
while showing restraint and the intent to avoid escalation.
Israel seems to
have planned to avoid escalation by, like Iran, targeting a military site and
not a civilian site. Though the targeted city of Isfahan has small nuclear
research facilities and is about 75 miles from the Natanz nuclear site, the
International Atomic Energy Agency confirms that there has been “no damage” to
nuclear sites in Iran. Israel also seems to have employed only drones in Iran,
saving its missiles for strikes on an air defense unit in Syria. Drones were
not launched from Israeli soil, but, it seems, from inside Iran. Iran says that
no aircraft or missiles were detected entering Iranian airspace. Israel’s
response to the Iranian attack was much more limited than had been feared.
There seems to have been little damage, and it seems the explosions may not
have been drone strikes but drones being shot down by Iranian air defense.
Israel might
also have planned to manage the Iranian response by launching a drone attack on
a military facility in the same city that it launched a similar drone attack
without Iranian response in January 2023.
A senior Iranian
official has told Reuters there are no plans to respond against Israel this
time.
The Israeli
strikes were a response to the Iranian strikes that were themselves a response
to the earlier Israeli strike on an Iranian embassy compound in Damascus.
Though the Israeli and Iranian responses to each others’ attacks seem similar
in their targets and their intent, the American response to the two retaliatory
strikes was not.
Immediately
following the Iranian attack on Israel, U.S. President Joe Biden said that he
“condemn[s] these attacks in the strongest possible terms.” He moved
immediately to “coordinate a united diplomatic response to Iran’s brazen
attack.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken similarly said that “The United
States condemns Iran’s attack on Israel in the strongest terms.” The U.S.
responded by punishing Iran with new sanctions.
But the U.S.
“neither endorsed nor condemned” the Israeli counterstrike. The U.S. had been
notified by Israel of the attack shortly before it happened: “We were not
surprised,” an American official said. The New York Times reports that Biden
administration officials were “refusing to comment at all about” the Israeli
attack “to avoid getting the United States pulled into the conflict.” After a
G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Italy, Blinken refused to comment on the
Israeli attack, saying only that the U.S. was not involved in it.
A hegemon
enforcing international law would apply similar judgements on Israel’s and
Iran’s similar responses. But a nation asserting, not only hegemony, but
primacy applies, instead, the rules-based order whose unwritten laws are
applied differently depending on American interests.
A nation that
acts as a hegemon leads a community that it is a part of with the consent of
that community because of shared goals and values. A nation that aims beyond
hegemony for primacy thwarts the ambitions of the international community in
pursuit of its own goals.
The dissimilar
American response to similar Israeli and Iranian actions reveals the American
pursuit, not of hegemony, but of primacy. Rules are applied, not universally in
accordance with international law, but particularly in accordance with American
interests.
American primacy
was revealed a second time only hours earlier.
Earlier that
day, the U.S. stood in the way of the will of the international community by
vetoing a Security Council resolution that would have recommended that the
General Assembly admit Palestine to the United Nations as a member state. The
U.S. had to veto the resolution because, despite pressuring the other members
of the Security Council to vote no so they wouldn’t have to veto it, the
Security Council voted unanimously in favour of the resolution. Twelve
countries voted yes with the U.K. and Switzerland abstaining.
Had the
recommendation gone to the General Assembly, where two-thirds of the 193 member
states would have to vote in favor, it likely would have passed. 138 countries,
representing 71% of the General Assembly, already recognize the State of
Palestine. Spain, Ireland, Norway, Malta and Slovenia are preparing to.
But despite its
obligation as permanent member of the Security Council “to seek unanimity and
exercise restraint in the use of the veto” and despite its obligation as a
hegemon to lead a community with shared goals, the United States, once again,
thwarted the will of the international community and acted in consideration of
its own goals.
Within
twenty-four hours, the U.S. twice showed – first with Palestine and then in
Iran – that it neither cooperatively leads an international community nor
applies international law universally as a hegemon would, but that it uses its
power and position to lead in its own self-interest as a nation with primacy
would.
No comments:
Post a Comment