Law and order in the Iran war | feat. Natasha Hausdorff

[Music] Good morning. It's Wednesday, May 27th. The multi-front war in the Middle East is now 963 days old. I'm your host, Jonathan Chanser. Welcome back to the FDD Morning Brief. The ceasefire that isn't a ceasefire continues. After those US strikes on Iranian mine layers and other threats, the region appears to be settling back into a familiar pattern. Namely, everyone is maintaining an uneasy ceasefire while denying that there is one and refusing to negotiate a permanent ceasefire. We'll secretly hoping to achieve one. If that makes sense to you, well, you should probably start your own podcast or at minimum right scripts for mine. Some bombshell news out of Gaza yesterday. Literally, the Israelis took out the newest Hamas leader, Muhammad Odet. The crazy part, Odet was killed 11 short days after the demise of the previous leader, Isadine Al-Hadad, who met a similarly violent fate. At this point, being the leader of the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza is basically a kin to being the drummer and spinal tap or the keyboardist for the Grateful Dead or maybe even the Prime Minister of the UK. It may look like you're famous, but that fame is fleeting. And you know what else looks fleeting? Hamas is control over the Gaza Strip. For a time, the conventional wisdom held that Hamas would come roaring back. But Israel is refused to leave the Gaza Strip. That's because Hamas is not surrendered. So the war is still happening. And because it's still a war, Israel has every right to capture more territory, which it has. In fact, the Israelis now control an estimated 60% of the Gaza Strip. And I suspect that number is only going to grow. This is not the time to gloat, though. After all, most of the fronts in this war have yet to be decided. But the first front, the one where this war began, is looking closer to victory for Israel with every passing day. If only 10/7 plenary Yahya Sinwar of wretched memory could see it now, he'd probably realize that wars produce only one thing consistently. And that's unintended consequences. Now for your headlines. Headline one is really media reported that Chin Bet Chief David Zinni met with former Palestinian Authority Security official, Muhammad Dahlan in the UAE. Dahlan is a fierce critic of PA President Mahmoud Abbas. And he's been living in the UAE since 2011. Details about the meeting was in the art scant, but it's worth noting that Dahlan was once close to Yasser Arafat, but then had that falling out with current Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Today, he has seen as a possible leader for the Palestinians in Gaza, but also maybe even the West Bank. And given his close ties with the UAE, the assumption here is that Dahlan could be a partner for Israel. Maybe. I don't know. Me? I've met the guy a few times. I'm not sure he really wants the gig. But who knows? Headline two, the regime in Iran executed a man accused of spying on behalf of the Mossad. He is by no means the first man hanged in Iran since the war began on February 28. But at least two others have been executed since Sunday. One for espionage and one for activity connected to the anti-regime protests. Earlier this year, those are the ones that sparked that mass killing of some 40,000 people in January. Is the Islamic Republic of Iran? That's what they call it? Yeah. How about Islamic Republic of Fear? That's what I would call it right now. And I think that probably means that things are right for an uprising. Headline three, the IDF expanded operations and Lebanon pushing past the ceasefire line, delineated in April, the so-called yellow line. This underscores exactly what FDD resident Lebanon expert David Daoud and I argued in a piece for the dispatch earlier this month, namely that a security zone in South Lebanon should serve not only as a buffer, but also as a launch pad for ground ops against his bala. Troops on the move are a moving target, harder to hit. It's good to see the Israelis go on the offensive after getting pummeled with FPV drones. We talked about those recently. That's been happening over the last month or so. But those his bala attacks continue to plague the IDF and northern Israel. So it's a file we're going to keep watching. Headline four, you've all heard the nicknames for L.A. given all of the Iranian diaspora folks living there. Terangelis, Iran-Gilis, you've heard them. Well, now get this. Iranian hackers responsible for a breach of the Los Angeles transport authority earlier this year and Israeli cyber security firm traced digital evidence to a known operation that's believed to be affiliated with the Iranian regime. The hackers stole at least 700 gigabytes of emails and other files from the L.A. County Metropolitan Transport Authority, forcing the L.A. Transit system to shut down parts of its network in March. Yes, the Metro was both down and out in Beverly Hills. All right, enough headlines time to bring on today's main event. Natasha Howesdorf is a barrister and international lawyer based in the UK. She's also the founder of the Center for International Rule of Law. She's been one of the foremost legal advocates pushing back on efforts to delegitimize Israel wrongfully in the international courts and institutions. I invited her onto the program today to discuss many things including the legality of U.S. and Israel military action against Iran. So let's dive right in. Let's welcome her onto the program. Welcome to the FDD Morning Brief, Natasha Howesdorf. Jonathan, wonderful to be with you. Thank you. Great to have you. Okay, I'm going to start off with just kind of a softball for you because I think people should know. Tell us about the Center on International Rule of Law. The Center for International Rule of Law has been set up based in the U.S. as a 501(c)(3) to finally push back against the weaponization of international law against Western civilization and against the free world. And I think much of what we're due to discuss this morning isn't a reflection of what international law actually says on any of these issues. We're experiencing this weaponization, this misrepresentation of the international legal arena. And it's being used to target not just Israel, as I'm sure will come on to discuss, but many other states and seeking to defend themselves. So the core of it is combating that phenomenon across the academy, across international legal institutions, and holding NGOs that push this false agenda to account. So just a quick follow up here because I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV, not a legal specialist. But international law is just a fuzzy thing, isn't it? I mean, it's not exactly this hard and fast structure that we have in the U.K. or the U.S. where we talk about societies that are based on the rule of law. The international arena doesn't really have anything that we can say is definitive. Am I wrong here? I would push back on that. And look, when I was at university, my professors used to tell me that most states that are here to most international law most of the time. And therefore, it is a thing worthy of recognition. Most of the weaponization that we're seeing around international legal concepts necessarily focuses on public international law and human rights. But the vast majority of international law that we rely on for our day-to-day lives and engagement international trade and commerce, travel, law of the sea, that is very well established. And it's what enables states to interact with each other, not just to do business, but also to progress in various different industries and fields, scientific cooperation, environmental caretaking. I mean, you name it international law, probably has a role to play. And that's why it's so important that we protect what is real international law and distinguishing it, distinguishing it from the politicized, manipulated, propagandized version of international law, which isn't reflective of the realities. And really, serving to, I believe, promote this agenda against the free world. We've been experiencing for many decades a fight, if you will, between rule of law countries, like the US, like the UK, like Israel, like many European states, that view law as a curtailment on government power. And that fight has been against the desfacts and dictatorships of this world that view law as a means of wielding power. And it's because of that struggle, I think, that we're seeing this phenomenon of the weaponization of international law. I say we come back to basics. We come back to the law that states have set out themselves, have agreed between themselves in treaties or through state practice and what we call custom. And that is to the advantage of states, and it is to the advantage of the free world. So that's important to preserve. And yes, it does exist and we need to protect it wherever we can. Okay, fair enough. All right. So based on that, and I can see you feel passionately about this, and that's why you've got an NGO on it and why you've chosen to devote your career to this. So, okay, now let's apply it. Is the US and Israeli war that was launched on February 28 against the Islamic Republic of Iran? Is it a legal war? I keep hearing that it's not. And that just seems like it's either the holder stuff. What does international law say? It categorically is a legal lawful war. On the basis that this is a war that has actually been going on for many decades. This is not something that started recently. The war between Israel and Iran has primarily been conducted by Iranian proxies against Israeli interests, of course. But that doesn't make it any less of an ongoing armed conflict. And the international law that applies to that ongoing armed conflict is simply the rules of war in the law of armed conflict, international humanitarian law, that dictate the action that you can take, the targets you can hit, the proportionality analysis that you have to weigh up when conducting. and the precautions you have to take to protect civilians. So the false discussion that we've been seeing taking place is to do with war-starting, and that's completely the wrong framework to be applying to what has been this ongoing war, recognised in international law with the phrase "yous" in "belo". That is the legal framework that governs ongoing armed conflict. And America's involvement here is equally entirely lawful, both as support for its ally Israel in this ongoing war, and in it conducting itself defence. But there's an additional layer of analysis, if you will, which the President referenced when he announced the start of these particular military operations. And that is to do with a preemptive strike. That conducts the start of armed conflict. And so I think it governs the start of armed conflict. And I think it's important to recognise that this is an additional layer of analysis or an additional layer of justification. It's not required for this war to be considered lawful, but it does indicate perhaps the timing of the US intervention at the end of February this year, and it provides that additional layer of justification. - Okay. Donald Trump laying out the legal justification. He's of course a well-regarded legal jurist. Not kidding, of course. But no, I mean, I think it's important that he did it out in that way. Right? Okay. So let's broad it out, because this is not just a war with Iran. We've been calling it, as I've been calling it, this is a multi-front war across the Middle East. The United States has been embroiled in some of this, namely the Houthis, I suppose. But then the Israelis have been drawn into multiple conflicts, starts with Hamas, spreads to his Bala, goes to the West Bank, goes to Syria, goes to Iraq, Iran, and beyond. So seven fronts, you could even add eight if you want to talk about the strike that the Israelis conducted in Qatar. But I mean, tell me, are all of these legal conflicts at the end of the day? I mean, they're mostly against proxies of Iran, which are, we call them terrorist organisations. I would assume that just by definition, that means that these are legal wars, but maybe it's more complicated than that. Well, I mentioned the Iranian proxies at the start of the analysis of why this is a lawful ongoing armed conflict. And that's critical, because under the law of state responsibility, it is overtly apparent that Iran is responsible for the funding, the direction of all of the proxies that you have mentioned. And that this is all part and parcel of this overall ongoing armed conflict. I appreciate, you know, the president may not himself be a renowned international legal scholar, but no doubt he is advised by them. The US government is advised by practitioners of international law. And it's not by accident that the president referenced the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the continued targeting by the Islamic regime in Iran. Of US military service personnel of US national security interests and of US allies, over the number of decades that I referenced and response to your earlier question. So on that basis, the very lawful analysis justification that underpins the most recent strikes we saw from February by the US and by Israel on Iranian military targets. Underpins also the strikes and the ongoing armed conflict with respect to Iranian proxies elsewhere. And I think it's also important to recognize that when those first direct attacks by Iran through ballistic missiles onto Israeli civilians occurred. It wasn't just the US that stood in solidarity with Israel, even the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom. We're shooting down a great number of those ballistic missiles intercepting them, taking out drones. And so there has been, at various points, a coalition effort in light of the justification behind these strikes. I think it's only when the political pressure really started to bite. We saw this in the UK and this bizarre series of comments that we had from the British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, about the lawful justification of the most recent aspects of this ongoing armed conflict. That I think we can put that down to the politicization of this analysis as opposed to what international law really says about the legality of these strikes. And let me just finish with this. If for some reason international law would be legitimate in saying that this wasn't a lawful action by Israel, by the United States. And I think international law would rightly lose a lot of credibility. It cannot continue to exist if this analysis is said to be correct that states are not able to act in self-defense against the foremost state sponsor of terror across the Middle East. And against a state that is actively seeking to annihilate another member of that region. Yeah, and I mean, just to your point about the UK getting involved in this conflict, I mean, there was Red Sea engagement, right? I mean, there was the concern about the who these blocking the Red Sea and that was done on behalf of the Islamic Republic. You've got the international waterway, right? The straight-up foremost that's being blocked and that's a violation of laws, war laws of the sea. And then, I mean, I do recall that in the, I guess the first round or two of Iranian missiles that were fired at Israel, those ballistic missiles, it was actually the RAF that mobilized out of Cyprus, put planes up in the air in order to shoot them down. So, you mean, just looking from the UK perspective where you're based. Yes, this is a war that they're already involved in. I mean, I like the idea of getting drawn into something more concerted in the straight-of-formos in the Persian Gulf, but they're already in, in for a penny, in for a pound, as you might say, right? Well, certainly, although that was then subsequent to that, I think we have seen a shift, certainly in this government as a result of public feeling, public sentiments and a domestic constituency, which quite frankly has centered on anti-Israel sentiment and the election issue of Gaza in particular local elections. Taking the bins out isn't the subject of the day anymore. Unfortunately, it is this vilification of Israel and the issue of Gaza that has been at the top of a great deal of the campaigning of the parties that are threatening labor, and that really did gain a great deal of ground in the most recent local elections against the governing party here in the UK. All right, so perfect segue. Thank you for that. I want to talk about the G word genocide, because that's the thing that seems to be gaining traction. Everybody seems to be parroting this. How do you respond to those who claim that Israel is doing something akin to the Nazis who were of course prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials for genocide, for crimes against humanity? This is what is being alleged right now against the Jewish state. I think it's outrageous, given how careful Israel has been in its battle against Hamas, and given the fact that Hamas started the war, and that it refuses to capitulate, it refuses to surrender, even though it has been defeated militarily on the battlefield. There is no fight left in this group, but because they refuse to surrender, because they maintain this constant state of hostility toward Israel, Israel has no choice but to fight on. How is that genocide? Well, outrageous, but perhaps not surprising that this false allegation is levied against Israel, and it's nothing new. We know that this was something that emanated from the Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda of the 1970s. It's been consistent through a great deal of the caricatures against Israel projecting Israelis as the new Nazis. It is very much part and parcel of the phenomenon of projection that we see, which is that the Jewish victims invariably hear of various crimes are being accused of committing the very crimes that were committed against them. It's this inversion of legal terminology, in particular, which is this modern manifestation of anti-Semitism. We see this across all sorts of legal terms, occupation, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, apartheid, and now genocide. So, viewed through that lens, no, this is not surprising propaganda, I agree with you that it's outrageous, because it is this entire inversion, not just of the term that was coined in response to the Jewish experience of being targeted for extermination in the Holocaust, but also to the Jewish experience on the 7th of October, which was to be subject to acts of genocide by Hamas, Palestinian Zahad, Fatah organization. There are lots of other Palestinian terrorist groups and some so-called civilians that also cross the border and participated in this mass slaughter and atrocity. And all of that, of course, really comes to the crunch when we see the way that the Overton Window has been shifting. This term, which has been deployed for many decades against Israel with zero credibility, has simply gained incredible because of the frequency with which it's been deployed and because of the fora in which it's been deployed. So, of course, South Africa bringing this charge against Israel at the International Court of Justice, even though it has absolutely no substance to it, has achieved the aim and the goal, which is making it acceptable to say Israel and genocide in the same sentence. So, just the discussion that we're having now unfortunately seeks to lend credibility. to the use of this term. But it isn't in version. I think the most important thing to recognize as to what the crime of genocide is, is that it was defined specifically to look at the intention to eradicate a racial, religious, ethnic or national group in whole or in part as such. So because these individuals are a member of that group, you are targeting them for annihilation, for elimination. And the evidence demonstrates the complete opposite. And the care that Israel has taken with respect to Palestinians civilians, the very context of this action, of course, the 7th of October and the legal military necessity of seeking to eradicate Hamas and take away that threat. And all of the measures that Israel has taken, which far surpass the laws of armed conflict, the requirements of proportionality, the requirements of distinction and precaution, the standards that Israel has applied to the armed conflict that has been ongoing and the Gaza Strip are unprecedented in the law of armed conflict. And in that respect, everything, of course, points to the other direction. But it is part and parcel of the falsehoods, part and parcel of these modern blood libels, which invariably form, you know, take this legal form. And this is why, you know, this discussion about international law is critical because it is this phraseology that is being inverted, weaponized, abused and deployed, as you say, to seek to delitimize Israel. And specifically, it's lawful self-defense in all of these arenas. Yeah. And I got to say, I mean, you mentioned South Africa. It's not just that they're alleging genocide. It's also that they're alleging apartheid. And of course, coming out of South Africa when they alleg something like that has its own legal implications. We don't need to get into that now. But there's the political implications of a country like South Africa alleging apartheid because, of course, well, they would say they know it better than anybody else. And so therefore, they would be akin to the German saying that we're, you know, that they're alleging genocide or something like that, right? Like they, nobody would know it better, right? But anyway, I got one more question for you. And it's, I don't know, it feels a little off topic, but I think it really does, it really does apply to the conversation that we're having right now. I want to talk just for a second about artificial intelligence because I know that the Israelis have used it in targeting. And I know that the United States is using it. And I think that there is this sort of stink on AI in the sense that, well, the first real front of AI battle has been Russia, Ukraine. And we know about the abuses that have been taking place there is the use of AI itself, a problem in international law. Is this going to become a sticking point for any, I mean, my sense is that everybody's going to adopt this. My sense is that all weapons of war, at some point soon, coming soon with theater near you, everybody's going to be using AI and war. You're going to have a genetic weapons that are going to be used against different states and actors. So is this something that you've started to explore? Is this the next great frontier? How would you describe what's going on in that space? Well, cyber warfare as a whole is actually something that I have devoted study to over several decades now. And that has been a significant development in the regular regulation of armed conflict and the laws of armed conflict. And it's been very interesting to see how states have come together to seek to regulate that. AI, of course, is already being deployed as part and parcel of this new age of warfare. And it's just like any other tool. It depends how you deploy it. It's been very interesting to see a lot of the media coverage over this, especially some of the anti-Israel coverage in this magazine 972, where it has been certainly painted out to be the Bogeyman. And any deployment or alleged deployment, of course, I think that the response from the IDF has been that the factual elements of the story that were alleged were entirely untrue. But any deployment to this has been seen to be bogus or problematic or in some way negative. Just as AI has been enormously beneficial in day-to-day life, in some respects, it can enhance the ability of militaries to precisely target military individuals, combatants or military targets to avoid civilian casualties and therefore to make sure that it is upholding the standards of the laws of our own conflict and making sure that it is compliant with military necessity, with distinction, with proportionality, and with precaution. So the very use of it isn't necessarily a negative phenomenon. To the extent that it makes a moral law-abiding army more efficient and better able to comply with the framework of the law of our own conflict. So I wouldn't say there's anything inherently bad or problematic about it, but it will ultimately depend on how it's deployed and whether that is, in fact, in keeping with making sure you're targeting the enemy as precisely as possible. Yeah, it's sort of like the term that people use here when they talk about guns that guns don't kill people, people do, right? I mean, it's all about intent, right? And I do think that that is the ultimate yardstick when we look at international law and the laws of conflict. We're going to leave it there. I want to thank you, Natasha Hausdorff for being very generous with your time. Thank you for joining us today on the FTD Morning Group. All right, time to drop the gavel on this episode. If you're itching for more, you know where to find us, FDD.org. Make your doom scrolling worth the time and lack of energy by visiting FTD's social media channels. If you love us, or even if you just like this as a friend, you can head on over to FTD.org/invest to make a highly appreciated tax deductible donation. We'll be keeping tabs on what the deal is with this Iran deal, as well as all the other goings on in the region. Lucky for you, we're going to be back on Friday to make sense of it all. So until then, I'm Jonathan Schanzer signing off for FTD.