By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Iran’s retaliatory strike on a US military base in Qatar, French President Emmanuel Macron urged all parties to de-escalate and return to negotiations. Macron, during a press conference in Norway, stated that US strikes on Iran were not legal, while also supporting the objective of preventing Iran from developing nuclear arms. He opposed any military-led regime change, emphasizing the need for diplomatic and technical solutions. Furthermore, Macron warned of the potential global economic consequences if Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Read the original article here
Macron says the US strikes on Iran lack legal basis. Well, this is a pretty hot topic, and it seems like a good place to start by saying that the French, under President Macron, are not exactly thrilled with the US strikes on Iran. The core of the issue? France believes these strikes, whatever their justification, didn’t have a solid legal foundation. That’s the basic takeaway.
It’s important to understand that France has a long history of maintaining a certain distance from the US, especially when it comes to international conflicts. Back in 2018, there was a solid push for French businesses to keep trading with Iran, even with US objections to the Iran nuclear deal. France seems to see a distinction between criticizing the US actions and supporting the business side of things. They’ve always had a long-standing relationship with Iran, dating back to before the 1979 revolution. It’s almost like they are playing both sides.
This leads to some interesting observations about geopolitical dynamics. There’s a sense of a classic pattern here. The US, in the eyes of some, is doing the “dirty work,” while the French, and likely other European nations, are ready to criticize and offer an opinion. While at the same time France is a major arms exporter and is actively involved in the international trade of weaponry. It’s a complicated dance, to say the least.
It’s easy to get cynical about this. Some people might see it as hypocrisy. The French take the “holier-than-thou” approach, and criticize US actions, but then don’t actually do much to step in and effect a change. It makes you wonder how long it will be before someone in an uncomfortable political situation seeks refuge in France. This can be seen as a smart way to prevent extremist violence, but it is hard to ignore what the US feels are good intentions.
But then, there’s the counter-argument. Some people will highlight the complexities of the situation. They might agree with the need to prevent a theocratic state from getting nuclear weapons. They might even feel that the US strikes, regardless of legality, are a necessary evil. And then you have the question of, did Iran’s aggressive actions against Israel have any legal standing?
This is where the legal debates come in. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is relevant, particularly when it comes to sending troops. The legality of presidential authorization for strikes, especially those that don’t involve “boots on the ground,” is a constant debate. The general idea is that, when it comes to limited military actions, the President has more leeway.
Of course, a cynical view exists. “International law? Doesn’t concern the US.” And the Trump era, seems to fit this picture well. To those who hold this view, the whole idea of legal basis for strikes is almost irrelevant. Rules don’t always matter when it’s convenient to break them. And the question of whether the US had a legitimate reason to pull out of the nuclear deal in the first place remains.
Now, let’s get to the core of Macron’s perspective: the use of force in international law. The rules are clear: military action needs UN Security Council approval or has to be in self-defense. He’s essentially saying that the US strikes don’t meet those criteria. So, from his view, they are “outside the realm of international law.” The US’s approach to international law is not always a priority.
Many people seem to agree that the reality is even more cynical. It doesn’t matter what the public thinks. The world’s political players are running amok, without consent. The whole situation is viewed as absurd. And that’s when the conversation moves to other issues with the political and financial climate. Bribery and backroom dealings don’t follow laws, and the powerful are building monopolies and controlling the political narrative. There are plenty of bigger problems.
The bottom line here is that Macron and the French have an opinion on these US strikes. They don’t think the strikes have a solid legal basis. The larger questions about international law, the political climate, and the overall complexities of war and peace are not really affected by the formal rules and restrictions.