A Diplomatic Imperative: Why the U.S. Must Reject Escalation in the Israeli–Iran Conflict
By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera | International Law & Security Analyst
The escalating military confrontation between Israel and Iran has thrust the region—and the world—onto a perilous precipice. With exchanges of strikes, rhetoric escalating, and global concern mounting, we must ask: Is escalation toward war, potentially nuclear, in the U.S. national interest, or is diplomacy the only viable path to preserve global stability?
Avoiding the Siren Song of Military Escalation
An increasingly persistent narrative in Washington proposes that unconditional support—potentially including direct military engagement—is necessary to defend U.S. interests and democratic values in the Middle East. This perspective dangerously conflates Israel’s strategic agenda with America’s broader security imperatives.
History offers a stark warning. The 2003 Iraq invasion, justified by the now-debunked weapons-of-mass-destruction narrative, cost thousands of U.S. lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and helped spawn extremist groups like ISIS. The Chilcot Inquiry in the UK and exhaustive U.S. Congressional investigations laid bare the catastrophic strategic miscalculations and humanitarian failures of that conflict. The UN Human Rights Council concluded that the war breached core tenets of international humanitarian law.
The lesson: Military solutions in the Middle East often precipitate deeper instability, not security.
Nuclear Risk: A Dire Threat to Humanity’s Future
Unlike Iraq, both Iran and Israel possess—actual or potential—nuclear capabilities. Iran is a known threshold state; Israel is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal. The mere ignition of this conflict carries the risk of miscalculation and nuclear escalation.
The 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons affirmed that any nuclear strike would likely violate the bedrock principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity that guide humanitarian law. Hence, entering a war with this potential means flirting with irreversible consequences that defy our moral and legal obligations.
American National Interest vs. Strategic Dependence
Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548), the President may commit forces only if Congress authorizes or in response to an imminent threat. Absent that, U.S. intervention could be unlawful. More importantly, the American public—exhausted from endless wars—deserves meaningful input. The Costs of War Project estimates the post‑9/11 conflicts have cost the U.S. over $8 trillion and nearly one million human lives. Another war risks shattering public trust and burdening future generations.
Diplomacy: The Only Sustainable Path Forward
Activate Track II diplomacy with unofficial backchannels and multilateral frameworks to foster trust and space for formal negotiations.
Revive the UN Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to adopt binding resolutions demanding immediate cessation of hostilities.
Engage neutral mediators—Switzerland, Norway, ASEAN nations—to help facilitate credible dialogue.
Rebuild the JCPOA framework: Renewed negotiations, inclusive security guarantees, economic incentives, and mutual nuclear restraints form the basis for de-escalation and long-term stability.
Legal & Policy Precedents Supporting Diplomacy
UN Charter, Article 2(4): Prohibits threats or use of force except in self-defence—underscoring the primacy of peaceful dispute resolution.
ICJ Advisory Opinion (1996): Reinforces that nuclear use is incompatible with humanitarian law absent absolute necessity—rendering any pre-emptive strike legally dubious.
UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) and the 1974 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention – affirm global norms prioritizing peaceful settlement and rejecting unilateral aggression.
Mobilizing Public & Congressional Resistance
A Congress beholden to cautious, accountable oversight must convene hearings, demand policy transparency, and restrain executive overreach. Civil society and media must refuse alarmism, champion fact-based analysis, and rally around international appeals for a ceasefire, following the model of the UN Secretary-General's 2020 global ceasefire call.
As former President Eisenhower reminded us, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched… signifies a theft from those who hunger.” We now stand at a similar inflection point.
Human Survival or Strategic Hubris?
Escalation in the Middle East is not a foregone conclusion—it is a choice. The United States can choose to weaponize fear and risk nuclear catastrophe, or it can summon leadership, moral courage, and diplomatic resolve. Let diplomacy, not bombs, define our legacy. The world demands—and deserves—nothing less.
This is not just policy. It is a moral imperative. #
Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University. He is an AB-Philosophy Major at the University of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances
Comments
Post a Comment