No Emperors

Perhaps left in the dust by the wild rejoicing at Kristi Noem’s firing, Barak Ravid at Axios reported on March 5 that Donald Trump is demanding that he must be involved in picking Iran’s next leader who will succeed the assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Weirdly, according to Ravid, Ali Khamenei’s son is the front runner to succeed him, but Trump claims he’s too “weak.” The context makes it clear that “weak” is a euphemism for “not sufficiently under Trump’s control.”

Now the US, like every imperial power, has long had considerable influence on the leadership of less powerful countries in its orbit, starting with Latin America post-Monroe Doctrine and continuing to the present in parts of Central America. Perhaps the most famous example is the US and Great Britain (as It was then) “restoring” Reza Pahlavi to the Peacock throne of Iran in 1953, thus paving the way for the Iranian revolution of 1979, which gave the Iranian people – and the world - Khomeini and then Khamenei. Coming back around with a vengeance.

BUT! Perhaps it’s my long-ago legal training but it seems particularly monstrous for a President of the United States to casually, claim the “right” to “be involved” in picking the leader of another country. This is not Germany in 1945; not militarily, not politically, and certainly not in the eyes of the international law that has grown up and matured since 1945. Of course it won’t happen but the General Assembly of the United Nations should pass a resolution stating that no nation, very much including the current world hegemon, has any right to be involved in choosing the next leader of a sovereign nation.

Of course, other countries go further, most notably Israel, which is baldly denying the existence of a nation that most of the world recognizes; namely Palestine, of course. Perhaps it is coincidence that it is these two nations, the only two I happen to have citizenship in, who connived in the current illegal war, and who are publicly claiming what can fairly be called imperial prerogatives over states recognized by the rest of the world. U.N. membership matters, as does a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.

To be fair, I should note that there are dozens or hundreds of submerged nations all over the word; peoples who lost at some point in the great lottery of nations that has constituted most of international history for as long as we have records. There are the prominent losers like the 30-45 million Kurds, divided between Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria – and now likely to be activated by Trump against Iran. There are others like the Basques and Catalans in northern Spain, and so many others. The difference between them, on the one hand, and Iran and Palestine on the other is Law, which Trump is consistently trying to subvert. In that case it’s international law, one of the newer and more fragile branches of law, In economics it’s usually known as “the rules-based international order,” which Trump has cut off at the knees. And, of course, his absurdly-named “Board of Peace” is trying to subvert the United Nations.

What Trump is trying to undermine at every pass is Law, which he correctly sees as inimical to his transactional, i.e. lawless approach. Law can certainly interfere with deals. The law, whether international or domestic, doesn’t prevent A and B from leaving C out of their deal, but it generally prevents A and B from carving C up and eating him for dinner. Trump wants to be able to carve up anyone he wants, whether in Minnesota or Venezuela or Iran – and mini or regional would-be emperors are only too happy to follow Trump. The only hesitation they have is whether they will end up being the diner or the dinner – which is a real dilemma for mid-size countries. If Iran (93 million) and Ukraine (45 million) are on the table, who is safe?

And that is why this war, certainly the US participation in it, is illegal and therefore wrong. The US had no legally cognizable reason to attack Iran. Israel was indeed threatened by Iran but has done a rather effective job of defending itself. If you think I’m waffling on Israel attacking Iran, which has advocated its destruction for much of the last four decades, you’re right.

Would (perhaps “Will”) Israel’s life be easier if the Islamic Republic is gone? Unquestionably. Is it worth the body blow given to the post-1945 norm against regime change absent an imminent threat of invasion (or destruction)? I’d say no, but I understand that most Israelis think otherwise. Of course, that norm has suffered considerable attrition by successive invasions of Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, not to mention the stifling and prevention of Palestine, including through an arguable genocide. (I realize everyone will hate me for that phrase.)

However, I have to uncomfortably accept that Donald Trump’s second term has taught me more about the essential role of genuine respect for law in a democratic society than did three years of law school. If law can be bent, it can be perverted. And I accept that liberals like me were often willing to bend the law while never considering that after us would come a populism that considers words and law mere “linguistic games” to be rolled over by any means necessary.

Law is ultimately an artifact created by human beings. It can be hallowed, as in the Jewish tradition, which can lead to its own problem, as we see in dangerous trends in today’s Israel. Or it can be mocked and sometimes it is indeed an ass. But when it is perverted and publicly mocked and denigrated, nationally and internationally, then all of us are seriously threatened. We’re losing something precious that we may not have properly valued, And frankly, I can’t imagine how we’ll get it back.

So maybe W.S. Gilbert’s pompous Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe was on to something when he pontificated:

The law is the true embodiment of everything that’s excellent.

It has no kind of fault or flaw,

And I, my lords, embody the law.