Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Saturday, March 21, 2026

Trump's Iran war non-explanation to the UN

Our wartime commander-in-chief, the best 13-star general ever,
on full-blown war footing --
he inspires great confidence and 
he sees clearly through the dense fog of war


The US ambassador to the UN submitted this letter to the UN Security Council to explain why Trump attacked Iran. Short story shorter, the rationale is insulting drivel. For example, the March 10 letter (dated March 11?) claims Trump attacked Iran in part to ensure the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. Of course before Trump started his war, maritime commerce was flowing freely through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump changed that.

In synch with Trump's usual amateur style, the letter letter sloppily argues after the fact excuses. It is not a professional Article 51 report. Like a hastily written report of an unread book, the letter asserts superficial excuses such as self-defense, collective self-defense, necessity, proportionality, and threat imminence. Little to no factual or legal explanation (and this) ties the excuses Trump's actual use of force. And, the bombast is right out of a pompous blowhard's lecture.  Phrases like "religious war of annihilation", "cynical lawfare strategy", and "uniquely dangerous actor" make it sound important, but they fail to satisfy the Charter’s reporting function.

Finally, his letter says the strikes were "necessary and proportionate", but it does not show why force was necessary or proportionate instead of continued diplomacy, containment, or any other measures. It also relies heavily on Iran’s past conduct and rhetoric, but a thorough Article 51 analysis needs to show a tighter connection between the specific threatened attack and the specific defensive response. The letter also leaves out evidence that matters most, namely what exact Iranian actions provoked the attack, what non-force options were attempted, and how the scale of Trump's response was limited to necessity and proportionality.

This homework gets an F.




No comments:

Post a Comment