The Society of Honor by Joe America

By Karl Garcia

---

The recent U.S.–Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets have reignited a perennial question in international relations: why some countries appear shielded from legal consequences while others face severe sanctions for similar actions. On the surface, international law — codified in the United Nations Charter — seems clear: the use of force is prohibited except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Yet reality paints a far more selective picture.

Russia, the UN, and the Limits of Enforcement

Consider Russia. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it wields veto power over any binding resolution. This structural privilege ensures that no military action against Russia can gain UN approval, regardless of the global majority’s opinion. Legally and practically, this makes any attempt by the U.S. or its allies to strike Russian territory nearly impossible without triggering catastrophic escalation.

Now contrast that with Iran. U.S. strikes against Iranian positions are justified, according to Washington and Tel Aviv, based on a combination of intelligence reports of potential threats and widely reported regional aggression. Legally, this is murky at best: international law allows force only in response to an imminent attack. Intelligence suggesting a possible future threat, no matter how credible, does not meet the strict criteria for lawful self-defense. Yet the strikes continue, largely unchallenged, reflecting not law but power politics.

The Role of Influence: Israel vs. Ukraine

Israel’s disproportionate influence in shaping U.S. policy is undeniable. Decades of strategic alliances, military cooperation, and robust lobbying networks in Congress ensure that Washington is attentive — and often protective — of Israeli interests, even in legally contested situations. The UN Security Council, where the U.S. can exercise veto power, further shields Israel from binding international censure.

Ukraine, despite widespread global sympathy and substantial Western aid, lacks similar institutional leverage. Its support is reactive and issue-specific, not entrenched into the political and military structures of major powers. While Ukraine receives massive attention and assistance, it cannot rely on the same combination of lobbying, strategic alliance, and veto protection that Israel enjoys.

Intelligence, Public Perception, and the Law

Governments frequently invoke classified intelligence and publicly known threats to justify military actions. Intelligence can provide a legal rationale if it demonstrates an imminent threat, but history shows its limits. The 2003 Iraq invasion, justified in part by faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, is a cautionary tale. Public perception — news reports, social media, or regional incidents — is even weaker legally but is invaluable politically, helping states frame actions as necessary for defense or stability.

In short, intelligence and perception strengthen narratives, not legal compliance. Actions may gain domestic or allied support without satisfying international law.

Selective Enforcement: A Structural Reality

The perception that international law is selectively applied is not unfounded. Powerful states, through veto power, alliances, and political influence, often act with impunity, while smaller states are scrutinized or sanctioned for similar behaviors. Israel’s strategic alignment with the U.S., coupled with strong lobbying, ensures robust protection; Ukraine, despite its global visibility, does not possess the same embedded influence.

This selectivity is less about the law itself than about who has the power to enforce, or block enforcement, and whose narrative dominates international perception. In a system where enforcement is political rather than judicial, legality is often subordinate to geopolitical leverage.

Conclusion

The U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran, Russia’s invulnerability in the UN, and the uneven support for Ukraine illustrate a fundamental tension in modern international relations: the law is universal, but enforcement is not. States can cite intelligence and public perception to justify their actions, but these justifications are often selective, politically mediated, and contingent on power dynamics.

For a world striving toward rule-based order, this is a cautionary tale. Legal principles matter only as much as the power structures that uphold them. Until enforcement mechanisms are depoliticized — a daunting challenge — international law will remain a framework interpreted through the lens of influence, alliance, and strategic interest.

---