Operation Epic Fury: A World Adrift and the Fragility of Global Order
For all of our sakes, let’s hope that Donald Trump’s Operation Epic Fury doesn’t turn into Operation Epic Fail. It could still go either way. The rapid disintegration of the global order means there’s little else to lean on in this moment.
Trump’s Unconstrained Power and the Erosion of International Law
In a recent interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump stated the only constraint to his power as US president was “My own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He added, “I don’t need international law.” Today, we’re witnessing that statement in action, as described by Andrew Hastie as the actions of an “apex opportunist” aiming to control global oil supplies.
Hastie similarly contends that anyone believing the global rules-based order still exists is living in “fantasyland.” This sentiment echoes Mark Carney’s warning at Davos, where he declared, “Nostalgia is not a strategy… Stop invoking a rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised.”
A “Might is Right” Stance and the Loss of Accountability
The attacks on Iran represent a vindication of the Canadian prime minister’s recent speech at Davos, highlighting the ineffectiveness of relying on a rules-based international order. When the world’s biggest democracy adopts a “might is right” stance, influencing the behavior of others – such as China regarding Taiwan – becomes significantly more difficult.
Any consistent application of international law or accountability appears lost. We are in territory not seen since before the 1945 UN charter, which was created to mitigate the risk of another global conflict. The fragility of these systems is now starkly apparent.
As a foreign correspondent, witnessing the breakdown of societal systems during disasters revealed how quickly law and order can collapse. We are now seeing a similar breakdown on a macro scale, with boundaries breached and trust eroded.
Australia’s Precarious Position
Governments like Australia’s find themselves in a precarious position, needing a strong protector like the United States but risking being drawn into a spreading disaster. Carney suggests that such powers should close ranks, but the path forward remains unclear.
The US has largely had its way so far, but mission creep is already evident, without a clear exit strategy. The potential for unintended consequences is real. The American experience in Iraq serves as a cautionary tale, as does the current situation in Afghanistan, which has returned to Taliban control.
Echoes of Past Interventions and Domestic Political Considerations
In 2003, then Labor opposition leader Simon Crean declared the Iraq war “illegal, unnecessary and unjust.” History has shown that war was based on a false premise – the search for weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Richard Marles recently affirmed his support for Crean’s position, stating that the terms of engagement in armed conflict are critical decisions for any government.
Australia’s current government has been careful to state it is not a party to the US-Israel war on Iran, but the support shown for actions that disregard international law contrasts with the principles demonstrated by Labor two decades ago. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, along with Marles and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong, stated their support for the US acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and threatening international peace and security.
The Legal Justification and its Flaws
While the behavior of the Iranian regime is indefensible, Stanford Law’s Allen Weiner argues that international law explicitly prohibits “just in case” attacks. He judges the attack on Iran to be “quite clearly illegal,” as a general danger or potential future threat is insufficient justification without an explicit and immediate threat.
However, political pragmatism is now the guiding principle. Albanese understands the domestic political risks, recalling how the Iraq war initially gained public support before losing it, and how Crean lost the leadership amidst a hostile political environment.
FAQ
Q: What is Operation Epic Fury?
A: Operation Epic Fury is a military campaign launched by the US, in coordination with Israel, against Iran, with the stated goals of abolishing the theocratic regime, ending its nuclear program, and degrading its military capabilities.
Q: Is this war legal under international law?
A: Experts like Allen Weiner at Stanford Law argue that the attack is illegal under international law, as it was not based on an explicit and immediate threat.
Q: What is Australia’s position on the conflict?
A: Australia has stated it is not a party to the war but supports the US’s efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Q: What are the potential consequences of this conflict?
A: The potential consequences include mission creep, unintended consequences, and further destabilization of the Middle East.
Did you know? The original title of Operation Epic Fury was reportedly “Operation Epstein-o Distract-o.”
Pro Tip: Stay informed about the evolving situation by following reputable news sources and analysis from international law experts.
What are your thoughts on Operation Epic Fury? Share your perspective in the comments below.
