Washington and London treat Iran like a fake country
Washington and London treat Iran like a fake country
The strike on the Iranian consulate this month shows how Anglo-American leaders don't believe that the "rules based order" applies to Iran.
This weekend’s terrifying but thankfully short-lived escalation in the Middle East started because Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing sixteen people including several Iranian military officers. Attacking a diplomatic mission is pretty much the ultimate no-no in international law, dating back to pre-medieval times.
The United States and Britain blocked condemnation of Israel at the UN Security Council, which is not surprising. Their justifications were pretty telling, however. Everyone is pretty familiar with Palestinians are not treated as a real nation. What may be even more surprising is how serious leaders refuse to treat Iran — which, love it or hate it, has a established government and established borders — as a really sovereign country under the “rules-based order.”
Immediately after the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate, U.S. State Department spokesman Matt Miller said that “we continue to assess the exact status of that facility in Damascus, and don’t have a final determination on that question.” In other words, Iranian consulates are maybe not real consulates after all.
Britain, meanwhile, offered an affirmative defense of Israel’s right to bomb Iranian diplomats as long as they’re near soldiers. “I can completely understand the frustration the Israelis feel when they look at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and they look at the terrible things that they have done all over the world,” British foreign minister David Cameron said today.
Of course, Cameron would not argue that anyone’s embassy or consulate loses its diplomatic status when it hosts military officers. Almost every U.S. embassy in the world — including the embassy in London — has a contingent of Marines guarding it. And most countries famously run intelligence operations out of their diplomatic missions; Israel has even exploited diplomatic cover for kidnappings and assassinations.
And then there was the argument that, because Iran violated international law 40 years ago, it forfeited all rights forever. “Israel did not attack Iran's embassy, but rather a nearby building,” Congressman Brad Sherman said. “In any case, it’s interesting for Iran to talk about how sacred embassy buildings are given what this regime did to the U.S. in the 70s - terrorized & tortured 53 American diplomats & cost Carter his Presidency.”
Hearing these arguments, I remembered Trump administration official Brian Hook, who often said that the Iranian government was not a “Westphalian state” but a “corrupt religious Mafia.” (The term “Westphalian” refers to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which created the modern system of national sovereignty.) By abusing the “privileges” of sovereignty, Hook implied, Iran had put itself outside of the international order.
As I wrote in 2022:
On the contrary, it is American leaders who have forgotten Westphalian principles. Washington does not really know how to accommodate countries who want to do business without importing a whole suite of American-style institutions or accepting a state of U.S. vassalage.
Iran and Cuba may once dreamed of spreading Islamism or Communism around the world in the same way. Three decades of U.S. superpower status—as well as isolation from neighboring states—have ended that vision.
In Washington’s eyes, however:
Diplomacy cannot simply be a means to secure U.S. interests but has to bring the triumph of the American way of life. The hawkish liberal center, which prides itself on moderation and pragmatism, is often the most obsessed with ideological victory.
Tehran and Havana have given up their dreams of permanent global revolution. Washington has not.
It’s true that Iran violates the Westphalian order. However, most of its violations — like fighting proxy wars with dirty tricks — are not outside the range of things the United States itself does. Iran’s attitude towards Israel is the major exception; although Israel and Palestine don’t have recognized borders, and many states don’t have relations with Israel as a result of the conflict, Iran refuses to accept Israeli sovereignty within any borders.
The U.S. attitude towards Iran is similarly unique — and that should raise some eyebrows. The refusal to recognize Iranian sovereignty does further than even the U.S. attitude towards Cuba. The Trump administration declared an entire branch of the Iranian military a terrorist organization in 2018, the first and only time that designation was slapped onto a national military. The U.S. government has extended that label to Iranian banks, steel foundries, oil tankers, universities, and news services.
Again, love it or hate it, Iran is an established state with established borders and a really big army. Treating the Islamic Republic as a piratical militia — or, as Iran likes to call Israel, a temporary entity — means denying that reality. It is a recipe for repeated, violent frustration when Iran actually does exercise power in the world, as it did over the weekend.
In my 2022 article, I pointed out why the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in the first place:
Modern international relations are based on the Peace of Westphalia. Europe had suffered decades of religious warfare after the Protestant Reformation, so in 1648, major European powers agreed to a treaty based on the principle of cuius regio, eius religio. To each kingdom, its own religion.
States may be disgusted and horrified by each other’s values, but they can put aside those differences for the sake of peace and pragmatism. Catholic princes believed that Protestant kings were buying their people a one-way ticket to Hell; capitalist parties believe that communist parties are suffocating their people’s self-expression. All of them can conduct trade and diplomacy based on the principle of respecting each other’s borders.
The alternative to this grudging coexistence is permanent war. It’s easy to make “peace” with someone who agrees with you or obeys your orders. The part that requires maturity is living with someone that you hate and think is evil.