{"id":25296,"date":"2026-04-29T10:43:31","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T10:43:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/?p=25296"},"modified":"2026-04-29T10:43:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T10:43:31","slug":"international-law-cant-stop-tyrannical-regimes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/2026\/04\/29\/international-law-cant-stop-tyrannical-regimes\/","title":{"rendered":"International Law Can’t Stop Tyrannical Regimes"},"content":{"rendered":"

Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth and his chorus, including morally blind academics claiming legal expertise, promote an imaginary “rules-based international order” that paralyzes democracies while protecting despotic dictators. <\/em>Under their absurd version of international law, preventive and preemptive strikes \u2013 like those carried out by the US and Israel would be prohibited except against what they refer to as immediate, obvious, and universally acknowledged threats.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In this form of unilateral disarmament reminiscent of European pacifists of the 1920s and 1930s, nothing can be done to restrain the world’s malicious dictators and warmongering aggressors before they begin mass slaughter.<\/em><\/p>\n

Whether in London, Ottawa, Berlin, or even Wellington, no plausible interpretation of international law requires democracies to wait passively for such catastrophic threats to become real.<\/em><\/p>\n

Grandiose declarations by Western politicians claiming preventive force against murderous regimes is somehow illegal have become\u00a0de rigueur. The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Norway and most European countries have weighed in with parallel and often identical statements on the essential importance of obeying international law while waging war against Iran and its terror proxies, such as Hezbollah.<\/em><\/p>\n

Such statements are a revealing snapshot of the shallow and dangerous Western discourse on war, law, and justice. Much of this is thanks to NGO personalities like\u00a0Kenneth Roth<\/a>, former head of Human Rights Watch, who have transformed rational conversation on human rights and the use of force in self-defense into ideological weapons. Roth and his chorus, including morally blind academics claiming legal expertise, promote an imaginary “rules-based international order” that paralyzes democracies while protecting despotic dictators and terrorist tyrants.<\/em><\/p>\n

Even in New Zealand, the issues have been given a prominence far beyond their merit.\u00a0According<\/a>\u00a0to Helen Clark, the former prime minister, “international law has been breached” by US-Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime whose mottos are “death to America” and “death to Israel.” Opposition leader Chris Hipkins followed Clark’s lead,\u00a0pontificating<\/a>\u00a0that “adherence to international law shouldn’t be a matter of discretion.” The current PM, Christopher Luxon was more careful, acknowledging a lack of necessary information.<\/em><\/p>\n

Clark is a Ken Roth groupie, and her foundation brought this false prophet of human rights to New Zealand in February. The foundation’s literature\u00a0lauded Roth<\/a>\u00a0as a “leading global advocate for human rights,” sentiments\u00a0echoed<\/a>\u00a0by the Amnesty International branch in New Zealand. But in reality, rather than furthering humanitarianism, Roth, Clark and their cult have erased Iran’s vicious terror war and denied justice to its many victims.<\/em><\/p>\n

Under their absurd version of international law, preventive and preemptive strikes \u2013 like those carried out by the US and Israel \u2013 would be prohibited except against what they\u00a0refer to<\/a>\u00a0as immediate, obvious, and universally acknowledged threats. In this form of unilateral disarmament reminiscent of European pacifists of the 1920s and 1930s, nothing can be done to restrain the world’s malicious dictators and warmongering aggressors before they begin mass slaughter. The legal facade and its related institutions such the United Nations and the International Criminal Court are painfully removed from the strategic, diplomatic and military realities of the 21st century.<\/em><\/p>\n

In particular, those who condemn the strikes against Iran by claiming the mantle of international law erase more than four decades in which the Islamic Republic of Iran waged a murderous campaign against the United States and Israel. The Tehran regime’s leaders were clear from the beginning: Washington is the “Great Satan,” Israel is the “Little Satan.” Countering and ideally destroying both is central to the regime’s theology.<\/em><\/p>\n

In weaponizing these slogans, Iran built a network of proxy forces \u2013 Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militias across Iraq. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) created a military machine with thousands of ballistic missiles and drones to attack Israeli population centers and block vital shipping lanes, and armed terror cells that carried out heinous slaughter from Jerusalem to Bulgaria to Buenos Aires. The so-called “international community,” including powerful NGO leaders like Ken Roth, politicians such as Helen Clark, and United Nations agencies tasked with guarding international stability and justice, turned a blind eye, and hypocritically condemned counterstrikes.<\/em><\/p>\n

The nuclear dimension of Iran’s aggressive ambitions makes stopping the threat of mass destruction from Iran more urgent still. The uranium enrichment program, ballistic missile development, and openly genocidal zeal toward Israel created a uniquely volatile combination. A regime that blatantly calls for the elimination of another state and works to implement that objective cannot plausibly expect its neighbors to view the nuclear project as legitimate civilian energy production.<\/em><\/p>\n

By ignoring this reality, Western politicians and pundits in the international law chorus are indulging in dangerous fictions. Until a nuclear missile aimed by a rival at Tel Aviv, Brussels, New York \u2013 even Wellington or Auckland \u2013 is on the launchpad, they will have the world believe that preventive action is wrong. In this way, they ask democracies to welcome near-catastrophe before being permitted to act in self-defense.<\/em><\/p>\n

In reality, no legitimate legal system, including international law, can expect victims to ignore visible and credible threats of annihilation. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense, and does not demand national suicide. Moreover, it does not ask countries to allow slow-moving assaults like the Iranian one against the US and Israel. From the\u00a0Caroline affair<\/a>\u00a0of the 19th century to the strategic doctrines of the Cold War, states have recognized that a government facing an overwhelming and accelerating threat may \u2013 indeed, must \u2013 act to defend its citizens before they are attacked. This is the essence of justice.<\/em><\/p>\n

In contrast, when a terror regime builds missiles, arms proxy militias, and advances toward nuclear capability while proclaiming its desire to destroy its neighbors, inaction is suicidal.<\/em><\/p>\n

Whether in London, Ottawa, Berlin, or even Wellington, no plausible interpretation of international law requi<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0egretnewseditor@gmail.com\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth and his chorus, including morally blind academics claiming legal expertise, promote an imaginary “rules-based international order” that paralyzes democracies while protecting despotic dictators. Under their absurd version of international law, preventive and preemptive strikes \u2013 like those carried out by the US and Israel would be prohibited<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47471,"featured_media":25297,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[198,2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-slider","category-top-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47471"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25296"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25296\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25298,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25296\/revisions\/25298"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/egretnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}