Given the war initiated by the US against Iran and supported militarily by Israel, but which now involves Muslim countries in the region as well, one could ask what is no longer a theoretical question:
If a nation decides to wage a preemptive war (i.e., war of choice) against another nation, for the stated purpose of eliminating the potential threat the attacked nation presumably poses to the rest of the world, knowing that there is the potential for escalation beyond the initial combatant countries, does the nation that starts the war have any clear moral obligation to consult with countries who stand to possibly be drawn in to the war?
These are very specific parameters. For example, if a nation started a war for the purpose of taking over the world, as was the case with Germany in World War II, or simply because there was a desire for geographical expansion, as in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 or its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it would be folly to expect the invading country to feel any moral obligation to the rest of the world.
After all, the very purpose of the wars was, by definition, morally corrupt; therefore, having any expectation of moral responsibility to other countries is simply unreasonable.
Consequences of the attack on Iran
However, in the case of the US attack on Iran, it was clear from the very beginning that such an act would have a deleterious effect on every country in the region that hosts US military assets or is even modestly benefiting from US largesse. It was clear because Iran made it known for months that it would consider any American attack against it as justification to respond by striking American assets anywhere in the region and even anywhere in the world.
America has exercised such international caution in the past. For example, the US’s 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was conducted by a combined force of troops that also included those from the UK, Australia, and Poland. The clear, stated objective was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and to end Saddam’s support for terrorism, as well as to free the Iraqi people. The logic is eerily similar to what Washington has stated is America’s objective in invading Iran.
However, just before the start of the Iraqi invasion, a UN inspection team found no evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. According to then-UK prime minister Tony Blair, the trigger was Iraq’s failure to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that US and British officials called an “immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.” While just four countries were involved in the military endeavor, there was broad support throughout the Western world for defanging Saddam’s police state.
Regarding the war with Iran, there was no such support for America’s action except for that of Israel, which is, of course, the one country against which Iran poses a serious existential threat. Sitting just 1,200 km. from Iran’s western border with Iraq, everyone here was confident that if Iran ever succeeded in developing operational nuclear weapons it would not hesitate to use them on Israel, given Iran’s 47-year constant repetition of their mantra, “Death to Israel,” the “little Satan” as they termed it, and “Death to America” referred to as the “big Satan.”
America's unilateral action
As for the Gulf Cooperation Council Muslim countries, the position of many of them is best summed up by UAE billionaire Sheikh Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, who put forth his views in the Egyptian press on America’s taking unilateral action to invade Iran without consulting with several countries in the region who were sure to be affected.
Writing in the Al Ahram newspaper, he opined: “I heard the statements of US Sen. Lindsey Graham, in which he calls on the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to enter this war, saying that we are also under attack and that we must join the fight. And I say to him clearly: We know full well why we are under attack, and we also know who dragged the entire region into this dangerous escalation without consulting those he calls his ‘allies’ in the region.
“We thank God that the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries are doing well, and we have no need for someone who claims he came to the Middle East to save us. The truth is that hasty American decisions are what embroiled the region in a war whose peoples were not party to its decision-making, and its local allies were not consulted before it was launched.”
In fact, setting the GCC countries aside for the moment, the White House also did not consult Congress before invading Iran, it did not make the case to the American people why their sons and daughters should put their lives at risk in this battle (more than 10 have already been killed), and no attempt was made to consult or gather the support of other countries in the world who also sit in the crosshairs of a potential Iranian nuclear weapon.
The bottom line is that the president of the United States began a war of choice that put American citizens as well as those of any number of other countries in harm’s way, neither making the case for America’s actions nor getting the support of allies worldwide.
A question of moral obligation
Does a political leader who chooses to go to war, presumably to make the world a safer place, have the right to unilaterally put the lives of millions of citizens around the world at risk on his or her own volition? Or to cause the entire economy of the world to totter on the brink of collapse as a result of such a decision? Or to grind the world’s air transportation system to a halt without warning?
Of course not. No thinking person can logically say this is permissible.
To get back to the opening question: Does a nation that starts a war have any clear moral obligation to countries that stand to possibly be drawn into that war to engage with them first to seek their support? The only answer is an unequivocal “yes.” This is more of a moral issue than a legal one. Even in the name of democracy, or to rid the world of the globe’s worst purveyor of state terrorism, no leader of any country has the right to unilaterally plunge the world into chaos.
We here in Israel will most probably be infinitely better off as a result of this war, yet that is an objective evaluation. It does not address the moral bankruptcy of a person who starts such a war without concern for its effect on the rest of the world.
English poet John Donne (1572-1631) wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Once political leaders choose to forget that truism, democracies die, world order suffers, and the interconnectivity of humanity itself unravels. How truly sad when leaders choose not to live by these principles.
The writer, a 42-year resident of Jerusalem, is a former national president of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, a past chairperson of the board of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies, and a Board Member of the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM).