The coordinated intervention of the United States and Israel in Iran this Saturday means not only a geopolitical shift of historical dimensions. Ayatollah’s assassination Ali Khamenei reestablish the moral contradiction that humanity is ending after a long time.
We are faced with a description that goes beyond the military dimension to enter into a debate about the intrinsic justice of violence when it is directed against tyranny. And therefore in the tension between international legality and the ethical legitimacy of dealing with the oppressor.
Above all, there is no doubt that the aggressiveness of foreign policy was common in the second election period Donald Trump It causes massive global unrest.
In just one month, we received help frantic acceleration of discretionary manipulations on the part of Washington, who despise not only the American domestic derecho, launching attacks without the proper authorization of Congress, but also the pillars of the international derecho.
Please note that this operation will take place shortly after the forced removal Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, confirming a pattern of direct action that systematically ignores traditional multilateral issues.
The risks of this implementation step are obvious.
Al dynamite the beginning of national sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force recognized in the UN Charter, Washington indirectly confirms the expansionist ambitions of other powers.
If, in the context of the revival of the expansionist ambitions of large holdings, the international derecho should be the limit for EEUU, the violence of the most powerful has improved definitely replace the order based on the rules.
However, just as it happened regarding the derogation of the Venezuelan dictator, a similar debate began about the results of the operation Epic fury.
You have to ask yourself when a foreign nation is allowed to intervene to bear witness to the criminal regime.
The regime of the Ayatollahs has consolidated itself as a despotic structure that leads to systemic crimes of harming humanity. The UN mission documented murders, torture, violence and enforced disappearances with a special health status for women and minors.
By 2025 alone, foreclosures will exceed 1,000 people. The latest wave of protests was met with the massacre of 36,500 people following Khamenei’s direct order to suppress the dissent of the average person.
After hearing the above, I can argue The classical doctrine of tyrannicide was applicable to the Iranian theocracy.
This philosophical tradition holds that a ruler who assumes the function of protector and becomes despotic guarantees the legitimacy of the exercise.
Follow the teachings of authors like this one Juan de Marianaa tyrant who perverts the community, less contemptuous of the laws and oppressors towards his subjects, may be deprived of his life by becoming a public enemy.
It is clear that the social pact is broken it would justify the removal of the oppressor when there are no other means of restoring good common.
This doctrine provides a suitable application scenario in the Iranian case.
Before the total impunity of the regime and the choice of any internal institutional path to submit to the supreme leader, direct action arises as a response to the despair of the massacred people.
The most illustrative example of this moral belief that can be used is Dietrich Bonhoeffera Lutheran pastor who participated in the conspiracy against Hitlerwhereas responsibility binds the most vulnerable to act against the tyrant, when the magnitude of the evil was extraordinary, and all human aid seemed required.
But he also continues to invoke the precedent of execution Louis XVI on January 21, 1793, convicted by the National Convention of human trafficking for conspiring with Austria and Prussia to invade France and restore their absolute power.
An episode that appeared to the izquierda as a typical expression of the justice of the people and subsequently to the right as an example of the barbarism of the revolution.
That’s clear Trump’s actions are not motivated by these heightened moral considerationsto purely strategic reasons.
In foreign policy, it seeks to guarantee the hegemony of the United States through the systematic dismantling of its rival. Between Maduro and Black, Washington proceeded to degrade Hezbollah’s military structure in Lebanon and imposed a total naval blockade on the Houthis in Yemen.
By also forcing the rise of the Syrian Revolutionary Guards and intervening in the Iraqi militias, Jamenei’s asesinato presupposes a final coup against the Iranian apoyos, in an exercise in political realism at its crudest.
However, with the independence of Casa Blanca’s interests, the episode leaves ethical questions that must be consistently plantarse.
There are strong arguments decrying the illegality of the attack and the risk of international anarchy. But there are also compelling reasons to defend the justice of liberating a verdant population when the international derecho system proves incapable of protecting human dignity.
It is a moral dilemma extremely complex in that it is impossible to return to one position without taking the opposite one.
But what is clear, and on the edge of uncertainty whether the elimination of the supreme leader will improve or worsen the situation, is that the mayor of Iran will favor tyrannical assassination.
Leave a Reply