Support for military action should depend on rule of law

The Age

5 hours ago

To submit a letter to The Age, email [e-mail]. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
WAR
The recent US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities raise serious questions, not just about Iran's objectives, but about how military force is authorised in a democracy. President Donald Trump's decision to bypass Congress wasn't only constitutionally shaky, but it also set a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power.
Some have been quick to call any hesitation or push for diplomacy a sign of weakness. However, that's a simplistic view of a complex issue. Australia's decision to advocate for talks shows that we're thinking things through and sticking to what is right while keeping our long-term interests in mind. Backing our allies doesn't mean nodding along with every move they make. Our support should reflect our democratic values and respect for the rule of law. Bombs don't build peace; working together through proper channels has a much better chance of achieving it.
Alistair McLellan, Yarrawonga
Rethink alliance
If only there were more Geoffrey Robertsons around to dispense incisive comment moulded by critical thinking (' Trump's rap sheet is long, but this may be his worst crime ', 23/6). The crux of the issue, with regards to the US' unprovoked bombing of another country, is entwined in the past efforts of United Nations members who, with honest intentions, strived to make the planet a safer, more secure place after the horrors of World War II. The UN has become hobbled by its own members. The fact that the Security Council has five permanent members of which two are actively engaged in 'aggressor actions' against fellow UN members speaks for itself. That these five countries have veto powers is beyond comprehension, and makes a mockery of the United Nations concept. President Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, obviously never thought it through when he mulled over the idea of bombing Iran's alleged nuclear facilities. Australia has to tread carefully here and rethink its alliance with a potentially dangerous ally.
David Legat, South Morang
Iranian risks downplayed
In downplaying Iran's threat to Israel, Geoffrey Robertson neither mentions the Iranian regime's 46-year-long commitment to destroy the Jewish state, nor that due to Iran, for over 20 months Israel has been fighting a war on as many as seven fronts. (And it's Israel who Iran primarily refers to as Little Satan, not the UK).
Robertson is just another Israel critic who not only attempts to criminalise Israel's right to self defence, but who also condemns any other nation that assists Israel to this end. His likening of Saddam Hussein's 'mythical weapons of mass destruction' to Iran's nuclear program is absurd, given the atomic watchdog's explicit concerns about Iran's large stockpile of near weapons-grade uranium.
Geoff Feren, St Kilda East
Not all citizens
In an effort to reduce conflating toxic governments with innocent people can we all make a concerted effort to add 'government' after talking about countries involved in current conflicts – Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, US – the list goes on. From talking to people from many of these countries in recent days, it strikes me that this distinction would make a difference to the racism experienced by citizens who did not ask to be led by dictators and zealots.
Sara McMillan, Frankston South
Slavish support
As more reports surface that the US bombing of Iran was against international law, our relationship with the US seems to be undergoing change, (' PM stance marks shift from past ', 24/6). Our PM has now endorsed the attack, saying nothing about the legality of the action Australia must consider. Do we uphold international law or are we slavishly committed to support the US, the AUKUS deal and the erratic actions of Donald Trump? We can't have it both ways. For me, the law wins.
Lorel Thomas, Blackburn South
Nuclear powers
Your correspondent seemingly sees no difference between the governments of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US (Letters, 23/6), or why some can have nuclear weapons but Iran can't. Israel's Netanyahu is a democratically elected leader, like Trump, and has been fighting wars started and forced on his country by Iran and its proxies. They are determined to destroy the Jewish state, just as Russia is to destroy Ukraine. Neither the US nor Israel intend to destroy any state.
Iran's regime, like Russia's, is autocratic, oppresses its own people, and strives for regional hegemony. Iran does so by having its proxies destabilise and cause violence throughout the region. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a total disaster for any prospect of Middle East peace.
Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, which entitled it to international assistance in accessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in exchange for refraining from developing nuclear weapons. It is clearly in breach of this agreement.
Mark Kessel, Caulfield North
History repeats
Talk of regime change has reminded Age correspondents of disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surviving CIA patriots who pursued US strategic and business interests in places like Central America, Vietnam, the Congo, Brazil and Chile – and many more – should probably be confined to their retirement communities.
Norman Huon, Port Melbourne