Three short paragraphs were enough for the US Department of Defense to justify the decision to launch the murderous raid against the powerful Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, Friday, January 3, in Iraq.
The air strike is described as a defense act aimed at neutralizing a man who, at the head of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - a group registered on the list of terrorist organizations by Washington -, "developed plans to attack "American nationals. The American operation also had the objective, according to the press release, of "dissuading" Iran from carrying out other attacks.
Self-defense ?
A justification which has left specialists in international law perplexed. The assassination "is very probably illegal and violates the rules of international humanitarian law", assured on Twitter Agnès Callamard, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In international law, extraterritorial killings perpetrated by a State are only legal in three cases: when the country where they are carried out consents, in self-defense or if the Security Council of the United Nations authorizes them. The UN was not consulted, which leaves the other two cases. "It is true that Iraq consents to American military activities on its territory but only for the training of troops and for the fight against the Islamic State terrorist movement", underlines Dapo Akande, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law & Armed Conflict, contacted by France 24.
There remains therefore self-defense which constitutes the central argument of the United States Department of Defense. He underlines the "defensive" nature of the murderous raid which aimed to prevent Qassem Soleimani from carrying out attacks. But by international standards, the threat must be imminent, making the strike necessary. And this is where the shoe pinches because "the press release only evokes plans for future attacks, which fits badly with the definition of an imminent threat", estimates Luca Trenta, researcher in international relations at University of Swansea (Wales) and specialist in American foreign policy, contacted by France 24.
For this expert, this is also one of the main differences with the program of targeted assassinations by drones carried out in particular under the presidency of Barack Obama. "The authorities justified the strikes with an imminent threat against American interests," he said.
The other big difference was that the killer drones have always targeted members of non-state terrorist groups, such as leaders of Al Qaeda or the Islamic State organization. This time, Washington targeted an official representative of a state. A legal nuance of size because "we can say that the United States attacked two countries at the same time: Iraq, where the raid was carried out without authorization, and Iran, of which Qassem Soleimani was one of the figures central policies, "says Dapo Akande.
Delay the recall process against Trump?
If the air raid is difficult to justify under international law, it also fits poorly with American national doctrine, no offense to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who assured Fox News that the assassination was "completely legal ".
The American approach to this has evolved considerably since the 1970s. "It was at this time that targeted assassinations were banned. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan introduced exceptions to prevent terrorist actions and then, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, they were much more widely accepted within the framework of the war against terrorism. But the authorities always supposed that the targets were combatants of non-state movements ", recalls Luca Trenta.
Here again, therefore, the quality of official dignity of a State is the problem. "This is a very questionable interpretation of the rules by the Trump administration, which takes for cash that one can assassinate official representatives of a country, whereas it is an issue that has never been debated in the states United, "notes the expert from Swansea University.
But the specialists interviewed agree that the freedoms taken by the American president with the standards should not cost him dearly. "I find it hard to see Iran attacking the United States before an international tribunal. At most, Tehran could use this assassination to justify attacks on American interests by brandishing, in turn, self-defense," said Dapo. Akande.
Internally, this operation could even benefit him politically. "I would not be surprised if Republican officials seized the opportunity to try to delay the procedure for removing the president on the pretext that priority should be given to the Iranian crisis," anticipates Luca Trenta.
On the other hand, this very broad interpretation of self-defense by Donald Trump risks having very serious consequences, and not only on the diplomatic or geopolitical level. "Many countries have drawn inspiration from the American doctrine for targeted assassinations, and there is a risk that they now believe they can also attack officials or act even when the threat is not immediate," feared Lucra Trenta. . In other words, the United States is becoming an increasingly dangerous example to follow.
Newsletter Don't miss anything from international news
Don't miss anything from international newssubscribe
google-play-badge_FR