Trump has bombed Iran. It is less than a week ago that this news aired, and already there is a rapidly unfolding conflagration across the Middle East. A series of knock-on events have been set in motion. Lives have been lost. Lives have been disrupted and uprooted. The trigger for all this were the actions of one man, who just so happens to be the POTUS. There is one thing I want to consider in light of these developments, and that is the reactions of some to what the POTUS has unleashed on Iran and the surrounding region. I had thought I would write about something in a similar vein back in January, when he gave orders to storm into Venezuela and grab president Maduro and his wife. Indeed, I started writing about it then, but things moved quickly and I decided much of what I would say had already been said. It wouldn’t add anything new. Nevertheless, I have come back to it because I feel that it matters. Recent events have generated responses from some quarters that I feel compelled to respond to.

Back in January after the American action against Venezuela, the leader of the Venezuelan opposition, Maria Corina Machado, took the rather unusual step of offering to share her Nobel Peace Prize with the POTUS. She is quoted as saying that she wanted to “give it to him [Trump] and share it with him” on behalf of the Venezuelan people. “What he has done is historic. It’s a huge step towards a democratic transition”. I was troubled by this stance at the time, particularly coming from a Nobel Laureate. Was this a reaction in the moment, or something Machado had given a lot of thought to? More recently, in light of Trump’s actions in Iran, president Zelensky of Ukraine has taken a similar position in voicing his support for Trump’s action against a political regime that has been the cause of much suffering. Specifically, Zelensky referred to the Iranian regime’s complicity in supplying parts to Russia, such as those found in Shahed drones.

Now, in both Machado’s case and Zelensky’s, I can understand that they are politicians and leaders in countries that have been subject to noxious, bullying regimes – be that internally, or through military invasion. It is therefore understandable, to some extent, why they might be supportive of radical intervention in, or military action against, such regimes. Nevertheless, there are a number of red flags which immediately come to mind as to why Trump’s intervention in Venezuela, and now in Iran, do not inspire anything close to the kind of gratitude that Machado expresses, or the support that Zelensky professes. Here are some of those flags:

• In the words of the old saying: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. That is to say, even if we considered Maduro’s position as head of state to be entirely undesirable and illegitimate, removing him in an illegitimate way doesn’t somehow render it right. Likewise, the Iranian regime’s involvement and complicity in terror, brutality and potential weapons manufacture, doesn’t somehow render an unprovoked US attack acceptable, or the assassination of its head of state.
• Regime change: When Machado claimed Trump’s actions in Venezuela were a “huge step towards a democratic transition”, I wasn’t sure if all of Trump’s very mixed motivations were being taken into account. In Venezuela, there were Trump’s interests in the oil industry. In Iran, a threat posed by the development of a potential nuclear weapon was given as justification. So were historical grievances dating back decades, as was America acting pre-emptively to protect its own interests. Taking all of this into account, how much can promotion of positive ‘regime change’ really be hailed as a genuine motivation of these interventions?
•  ‘The will of the people’: the POTUS himself and various commentators have suggested that this is an unmissable opportunity for the Iranian people to exercise their political will and rights, just as it supposedly was for the Venezuelan people to exercise theirs. I feel that this is naïve at best, given it is a very sudden and unpredictable way to try and provoke such change. Second, I am doubtful as to what kind of foundation for change a sudden military intervention of a large foreign power in the regime of another sovereign state can lay. And third, it reeks of arrogance for the POTUS to suggest that this kind of reckless American action is what will trigger the ‘will of the people’. Support for a peaceful transition and true empowerment brings to mind something that would look quite different.

Finally, Israel’s involvement, or more specifically Netanyahu and the Israel Defence Force’s (IDF’s) involvement in what is currently unfolding in Iran and the wider region, is even more disturbing given their recent actions in Gaza. In light of this, suggesting that the combined actions of Israel and the US in Iran are somehow the harbingers of peace or a welcome way to bring about regime change, seems a very dubious proposition.

Amongst the commentary condemning the attack on Iran there is once again mention of the rules-based international order. It would seem there is really very little left of it. I, for one, am sceptical as to how much-repeated invocations for the rules-based order to be upheld and respected will have any discernible impact on what happens from here. The rules-based international order was a time when heads of state generally acted with greater restraint, less naked self-interest and at least some respect for rules and negotiation. What we are living in now is arguably much closer to the puppet-based international order. Here, we have the last-ditch attempts at negotiation over nuclear weapons between Trump and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And, in a recent episode of “This Authoritarian Life – The World’s most ruthless self-care podcast”, presidents Putin and Xi model positive dialogue patterns, taking Trump’s anticipated action against Iran as their starting point.

Wherever you may be reading this from, may you find peace in your heart.