Washington's airstrike in Syria on Feb. 25 was lawful by international standards had Syria attacked the United States.
"The United Nations Charter makes absolutely clear that the use of military force on ... a foreign sovereign state is lawful only in response to an armed attack on the defending state for which the target state is responsible. None of those elements is met in the Syria strike."
-- Mary Ellen O'Connell, professor of international law at Notre Dame
Ten days earlier, a rocket attack in Iraqi Kurdistan killed an American contractor and wounded coalition partners. Yet Washington didn't know who was responsible before retaliating.
"Right now, we're not able to give you certain attribution as to who was behind these attacks... Let's let the investigations complete and conclude and then when we have more to say, we will."
-- John Kirby, Pentagon spokesman
The airstrike wasn't on Iraq, the country of the rocket attack. Nor had Iraq concluded its investigation into the attack on its soil. It was on Syria, a whole other country.
Syria was only a proxy target, however. Washington's airstrike had Iran in mind, another "whole other" country.
Guardians of Blood Brigade (Saraya Awleeya aD-Dam) claimed responsibility for the attack in Iraq. However, Iran claims it has no affiliation to the little-known group.
Let's say Iran was responsible for the rocket attack in Iraq. Why then would the U.S. conduct illegal airstrikes on Syria and not legal airstrikes on Iran?
Instead, the U.S. hit Syria for an attack in Iraq that it thinks Iran is behind.
The airstrike in Syria was the first U.S. attack under the Biden Administration, and it was sloppy as hell.
A comment on "U.S. bombs facilities in Syria used by Iran-backed militia" (L.C. Baldor and R. Burns).
Related: U.S. Space Force (2020)
Related: Nuclear Weapons
Related: Electoral Politics, II (2020)
Related: Presidential Election, III (2020)
Related: "This Life or the Next" (2019)