International law will be interpreted according to America's needs, said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Wolz. Even if the U.S. strikes Iran’s infrastructure, it won’t constitute a war crime! On April 20, according to a report by Russia's Sputnik News Agency, in front of representatives from various countries at the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador Wolz publicly stated that if negotiations with Tehran fail, any potential U.S. strike on Iran’s dual-use civilian and military infrastructure would not fall under the category of war crimes—as long as such infrastructure was clearly used for purposes including military ones from the outset.
It is crystal clear that Wolz’s remarks convey an unmistakable message: whether attacking Iran’s infrastructure violates international law depends entirely on what the United States says. In fact, what the U.S. means is that such attacks do not violate international law—and naturally, U.S. attacks on Iran certainly don't either. Yet we find it odd: since the U.S. has never truly abided by international law, why bother invoking it now as a cover for its actions?
In reality, this statement by the U.S. aims to place itself automatically beyond accountability for war crimes. When the U.S. wants to wage war, international law is automatically waived for it; when other nations follow the U.S.’s behavior, the U.S. suddenly invokes international law to constrain others. In short, international law becomes a tool for the U.S.—to be interpreted however it sees fit. However, with such an attitude toward international law, while the U.S. may manage to dress up its actions, it will struggle to convince the world. The U.S. is digging its own hole—eventually, it will fall into it.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862951628750859/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.