The recent Zionist aggression against Iran brought to mind a political and legal issue that both Iraq and Syria experienced; one that Zionists restricted their reporting through their tyrannical media, relying on the stupidity and blind sectarian hatred rooted in the opposition in both countries. This is despite the fact that the damage from those attacks was widespread and not limited to the political regimes in either country, which the opposition claimed to be fighting! The issue is that of attacking research, production, or storage facilities for nuclear, chemical, or biological materials.
In order to understand the issue and its legality, we must consider the legislation enacted by Zionism after World War II in particular, which combined the results of its bloody experiences after three centuries of internal wars. This legislation was adopted to protect its own populations from the tyranny of one another, and not to protect the peoples of the world outside Europe and its dependencies. This is because Zionism has always believed, that these laws would not apply there when it attacks, invades, occupies, and destroys outside Europe, as has happened since the end of World War II. Examples of this are countless. These laws were fully implemented when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but none of them were invoked when the Zionists invaded and occupied Panama, despite that fact that only a few months passed between the two events!
This legislation, which Zionism called “International Law,” and which the rest of the world accepted including the “Collective South,” of which we are a part, combined the laws of war in general and the laws protecting civilians in times of war in particular, appear mainly in the
four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Annexes. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the Geneva Conventions have become peremptory norms of international law, from which no derogation or violation may be made under any circumstances, regardless of
the excuse, cause, or justification. States later discovered that the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons was not clear in all its parts, resulting in Annex I of 1977, which specifically strengthened the protection of civilians at time of war.
So, what does Annex I say about attacking facilities containing dangerous materials that may expose civilians to harm or death? I do not wish to elaborate on everything related to this, but I will summarize by saying that Article 85(3)(c) defined this crime as follows:
“Article 85 – Repression of breaches of this Protocol
[…..]
3. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11 , the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
[….]
c – Launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57 , paragraph 2 (a) (iii);”
A number of Zionist politicians and legal experts, at various stages of their ongoing aggression against the world, have sought to find excuses to circumvent these provisions on attacking civilian sites in general and installations containing dangerous materials in particular, claiming that these sites are used for dual purposes, military and civilian purposes, or that the military benefit is greater than the civilian harm, or that the harm is proportionate to the objective of the military action, and other similar Zionist justifications, which no lawyer genuinely believed and which have produced new terms in law that have no basis!
But the legislator had already anticipated the possibility of such argument, and thus blocked the way in Article 52:
“Article 52 – General protection of civilian objects
[….]
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”
This is because doubt must be interpreted in favor of civilians, not against them, as long as the primary objective is to protect them, not to harm them. If this protection exists in times of war, what about the protection of civilians and civilian objects that international law must provide in times of peace, as in the case of attacks on sites in Iraq, Syria, and Iran!
In the 1990s, the aggressive regime in the USA mined the shores of Nicaragua. The small, vulnerable state, a neighbor of the Zionist monster which is insatiable for blood and destruction, sought help from the International Court of Justice. America objected, but the court issued a ruling in 1996 stating that America's action constituted aggression. Since that day, America has not attacked Nicaragua!
If Iraq had complained when its nuclear reactor was bombed in 1980, it would have won the case. Had it done so, it would have been difficult for Britain to bomb Syria’s chemical facilities, and it would have been even more difficult for Starmer and Macron to support Trump in bombing Iran’s reactors, arguing that they were legitimate or justified because the International Court of Justice had ruled that they were not.
So that no one, who may try to find an excuse for his inability to have read a single ruling of the International Court of Justice, argues in response what can and cannot be done with the International Court of Justice, as I have heard from many over the past thirty years, including those who claim to have studied law. I will summarize my answer with the words of Abu at- Tayyib:
“I am drowning, so what fear am I of getting wet?”
Abdul Haq Al-Ani
PhD in International Law
June 29, 2025