Last Saturday, I wrote a piece titled War Is Not Liberation: A Plea for Restraint, Law and the Protection of Civilians. In it I argued that military escalation in the Middle East risked inflicting terrible harm on ordinary people while undermining the framework of international law that exists to restrain the use of force.
Sadly, the events of the past few days have moved in precisely the direction many of us feared.
The decision by the United States and Israel to launch coordinated military strikes against Iran and Lebanon has opened a dangerous new phase in an already volatile region. The risk of wider war is real. The humanitarian consequences are mounting. And once again the world is being asked to accept that bombs dropped in the name of security or liberation will somehow produce a more stable and democratic future.
Experience suggests otherwise.
None of this means we should be naïve about the Iranian regime and its proxies. It remains deeply authoritarian, brutally repressive and responsible for supporting violence across the region and beyond. Many courageous Iranians have risked imprisonment, exile and death to challenge it. Their aspirations for freedom deserve the support and solidarity of the international community.
But solidarity with the Iranian people cannot mean supporting the bombing of their cities.
If anything, the unfolding crisis strengthens the argument I made previously. The rule of law matters precisely at moments like this, when powerful states may be tempted to ignore it.
War without law
The most troubling aspect of the current escalation is the apparent disregard for the framework of international law.
The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against another state except in very limited circumstances such as self-defence or with explicit Security Council authorisation. Independent investigators have already warned that the current campaign risks breaching those fundamental principles.
That matters.
International law is not an optional extra to be invoked only when convenient. It is the fragile architecture that prevents the world from descending into a system where powerful states simply do as they please, particularly when one of those states is not following their own domestic law in starting military actions without congressional approval.
If that framework collapses, smaller nations lose their protection and global stability quickly erodes.
Trump, Netanyahu and the politics of distraction
It is impossible to ignore the political context in which this war has been launched.
Both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu lead governments facing profound political pressures at home. Trump especially is desperate to distract from the ongoing Epstein scandal and is clearly scrabbling to avoid a catastrophic result for his party in the midterm elections.
Both leaders have repeatedly shown a willingness to frame international crises in stark ideological terms and to treat military action as a tool of political theatre.
This is not a responsible way to conduct foreign policy.
The Middle East has seen far too many wars launched with promises of decisive victories and democratic transformation. Iraq stands as a particularly painful reminder that military intervention marketed as liberation often leaves chaos in its wake.
Those who genuinely wish to see a democratic Iran should reflect carefully on that history.
Bombs rarely produce liberal democracies.
Britain must show independence
In recent days Donald Trump has publicly criticised the United Kingdom and its Prime Minister for refusing to support offensive strikes against Iran.
On this point, the British government deserves at least some credit.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made clear that Britain will not participate in offensive military action without a clear legal basis and a credible strategy for what follows.
That is not weakness. It is prudence.
Britain’s historic relationship with the United States remains important. But the “special relationship” has never meant automatic alignment with every American administration. Our alliance is with the American people and with the democratic institutions that have long underpinned American leadership in the world.
It is not and must not be a personal allegiance to any particular President.
Indeed, true allies sometimes have a duty to say no. I only hope that Starmer has the strength of character to stand up to the global bully and not permit the UK to be dragged into Trump’s war of misfortune beyond our limited engagement to date.
Democracy must remain the West’s calling card
There is a deeper concern here.
For decades the United States presented itself as a champion of democratic values, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. That moral authority was never perfect, but it mattered enormously.
When Western governments abandon those principles in favour of unilateral military action and disregard for international norms, they weaken the very ideals they claim to defend. What makes it worse is Trump clearly has little respect for democracy and the rule of law in his own country – the use of ICE officers an armed forces against his own citizens and others legally in the US shows a flagrant disregard for the principles his nation claims to champion.
The result is not greater security but greater instability and cynicism.
If the democratic world wishes to remain credible, it must hold itself to the standards it expects of others.
The courage to choose peace
The Iranian regime may well fall one day. Many Iranians hope it will.
But lasting political change cannot be delivered from 30,000 feet by cruise missiles and strategic bombers. It comes through the agency of people themselves, supported by diplomacy, international pressure, and solidarity with those seeking reform.
The world does not need another catastrophic war in the Middle East.
It needs restraint. It needs diplomacy. And above all it needs leaders who remember that the rule of law exists precisely to prevent moments like this from spiralling into something far worse.
War may sometimes be unavoidable.
But it should never be entered into lightly, and never justified with slogans about liberation that history has already proven hollow.
C. E. Lord OBE 