I gave you an answer. Shit, I’m giving you your answer: yes. I don’t see how that helps your case, but have at it:
Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.
I’m not interested in my answer, I want to know what you think. Do you also think it is yes?
Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.
I don’t think the fact that Israel is going to bomb Iran in 2026 is relevant for justifying a humanitarian intervention in 2024. That I would instead see as a justification for Iran attacking Israel shortly before said attack in line of a preemptive attack (fending of an imminent attack). For a humanitarian intervention, the motif is to end the violation of human rights.
Given that in this case, Iran wouldn’t have access to the US carrier group or two from the other hypothetical example, but rather the same financially dependent religiously fanatical fighters as in reality (I presume?), I’d ask how the indiscriminate terrorism against Israelis we see in reality from these groups would help achieve the goal that wants to act as a justification for these actions? Sure, Irani-instructed groups that would target the IDF and other “legitimate” targets specifically which are responsible for said violations of human rights, could be considered legitimate. That is, if in that hypothetical world, just like the other example, Iran wouldn’t actually have the desire to simply eliminate Israel and wouldn’t be one of the key drivers in said conflict. A huge factor for this personal legitimisation would be if it actually could end the violation of human rights and not just add up to it. And here, the hypothetical Iran with the carrier groups would be far more effective (and hence legitimised) than the hypothetical Iran that enables some militias to indiscriminately fire makeshift rockets across the border, hoping to hit something meaningful.
I’m not interested in my answer, I want to know what you think. Do you also think it is yes?
You mean in reality? Clearly no - the 12-day war was a year ago.
Given that in this case, Iran wouldn’t have access to the US carrier group or two from the other hypothetical example, but rather the same financially dependent religiously fanatical fighters as in reality (I presume?)
Well, they do also have the PFJJPFJPPF PFLP, I guess. Splitters…
A huge factor for this personal legitimisation would be if it actually could end the violation of human rights and not just add up to it. And here, the hypothetical Iran with the carrier groups would be far more effective (and hence legitimised) than the hypothetical Iran that enables some militias to indiscriminately fire makeshift rockets across the border, hoping to hit something meaningful.
Now, this is …novel. I was gonna say “ends justify the means”, but this isn’t even that, it’s legitimacy through… competency? Fait accompli? Like, would it be retroactively criminalized if they fuck up? Or is the intervention presumed illegitimate unless it works? Where was that joke from? “Gentlemen, here’s the new kidnapping case, obviously I’ll be taking you off duty, hand in your badges, you can have them back when you find the girl.”
If you’re going to take matters in your own hands, you should actually be able to stop what you’re using as reason to act. And in the end, of course, also stop it. And not add to it. That is the key point.
NATO managed to stop it in Yugoslavia. The US, while technically capable, didn’t achieve anything meaningful in Afghanistan, but left a steaming pile of mess when they withdrew. Or take Venezuela. Kidnapping Maduro didn’t help the human rights situation but only produced marketable pictures for the domestic fan base. Hence, it is very hard to see any ‘legitimisation’ in that, even if Maduro is no-one to shed a tear for. Also, throwing bombs on Iran won’t topple that regime or achieve anything for the Iranian population. So what’s the ‘positive impact’ this whole venture should have? If you want your intervention to be seen favourably, it should improve the situation. As happened in Yugoslavia. Hence, I’d say, their success proved them ‘right’, as in it is one of the few situations where I’d say I approve they took matters in their own hands when UN couldn’t respond (which undeniably would have been favourable).
I gave you an answer. Shit, I’m giving you your answer: yes. I don’t see how that helps your case, but have at it:
Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.
I’m not interested in my answer, I want to know what you think. Do you also think it is yes?
I don’t think the fact that Israel is going to bomb Iran in 2026 is relevant for justifying a humanitarian intervention in 2024. That I would instead see as a justification for Iran attacking Israel shortly before said attack in line of a preemptive attack (fending of an imminent attack). For a humanitarian intervention, the motif is to end the violation of human rights.
Given that in this case, Iran wouldn’t have access to the US carrier group or two from the other hypothetical example, but rather the same financially dependent religiously fanatical fighters as in reality (I presume?), I’d ask how the indiscriminate terrorism against Israelis we see in reality from these groups would help achieve the goal that wants to act as a justification for these actions? Sure, Irani-instructed groups that would target the IDF and other “legitimate” targets specifically which are responsible for said violations of human rights, could be considered legitimate. That is, if in that hypothetical world, just like the other example, Iran wouldn’t actually have the desire to simply eliminate Israel and wouldn’t be one of the key drivers in said conflict. A huge factor for this personal legitimisation would be if it actually could end the violation of human rights and not just add up to it. And here, the hypothetical Iran with the carrier groups would be far more effective (and hence legitimised) than the hypothetical Iran that enables some militias to indiscriminately fire makeshift rockets across the border, hoping to hit something meaningful.
You mean in reality? Clearly no - the 12-day war was a year ago.
Well, they do also have the
PFJJPFJPPFPFLP, I guess. Splitters…Now, this is …novel. I was gonna say “ends justify the means”, but this isn’t even that, it’s legitimacy through… competency? Fait accompli? Like, would it be retroactively criminalized if they fuck up? Or is the intervention presumed illegitimate unless it works? Where was that joke from? “Gentlemen, here’s the new kidnapping case, obviously I’ll be taking you off duty, hand in your badges, you can have them back when you find the girl.”
If you’re going to take matters in your own hands, you should actually be able to stop what you’re using as reason to act. And in the end, of course, also stop it. And not add to it. That is the key point.
NATO managed to stop it in Yugoslavia. The US, while technically capable, didn’t achieve anything meaningful in Afghanistan, but left a steaming pile of mess when they withdrew. Or take Venezuela. Kidnapping Maduro didn’t help the human rights situation but only produced marketable pictures for the domestic fan base. Hence, it is very hard to see any ‘legitimisation’ in that, even if Maduro is no-one to shed a tear for. Also, throwing bombs on Iran won’t topple that regime or achieve anything for the Iranian population. So what’s the ‘positive impact’ this whole venture should have? If you want your intervention to be seen favourably, it should improve the situation. As happened in Yugoslavia. Hence, I’d say, their success proved them ‘right’, as in it is one of the few situations where I’d say I approve they took matters in their own hands when UN couldn’t respond (which undeniably would have been favourable).