The propensity for global audiences to consume news of conflict and human suffering as a form of entertainment is a disconcerting phenomenon. This trend, sometimes referred to as the “CNN effect,” underscores the complexities of modern spectatorship, where distant crises are reduced to televisual spectacles. You may, as well, buy some popcorn and have a good supply of beverages because the latest news (however unexplainable they are) no longer surprise us.
Historical parallels can be drawn with the international community’s response to apartheid, wherein widespread condemnation emerged only as the racist regime’s demise became imminent. This selective application of moral outrage suggests that geopolitical interests often dictate the timing and intensity of international responses to human rights abuses.
The current landscape of global politics, marked by conflicts such as the Israel-Palestine issue and rising tensions with Iran, exemplifies this pattern. The resultant suffering and destabilization are frequently reduced to dramatic narratives, with audiences more invested in the spectacle than the human consequences.
This detachment raises critical questions about the nature of global conscience and the efficacy of public outrage in driving meaningful change.
Does spectatorial politics not perpetuate violence by normalizing human suffering as a form of entertainment, or can awareness and activism be harnessed to address these crises effectively? The answers lie in understanding the intricate dynamics of global spectatorship and the power structures that shape international responses to conflict.
THE RIGHT TO MURDER LEADERSHIP – A CONSEQUENCE OF DOUBLE STANDARDS
Double standards are hypocrisy at its worst, creating frustrations that have lasting impacts on relationships, eroding trust and destroying mutual respect.
The recent revelations about Israel’s alleged assassination of Iranian political leaders have sparked a disturbing trend – the normalization of political killings. Netanyahu and Trump’s reliance on personalized warfare, targeting individual leaders like Ayatollah Ali Khamei ni, exposes their bankruptcy of strategic vision. This approach is a far cry from traditional warfare, where nations clashed on battlefields; now, they’re just assassinating individuals, fuelling martyrdom. Is this really the best they can give?
“Decapitation Strategy”
The so-called decapitation strategy exemplifies a calamitous failure of strategic vision, underscoring a puerile and myopic approach to conflict resolution. Such a regressive tactic not only betrays a dearth of intellectual rigor but also a reckless disregard for the inevitable consequences that will ensue, serving only to perpetuate a cycle of violence and vendetta. It is a paradigm of desperation, masquerading as a coherent policy, and stands as a testament to the intellectual bankruptcy of its proponents.
The strategic implications of targeting high-profile leaders, such as Ayatollah Ali Khameini, warrant careful consideration. Historical precedents suggest that the elimination of influential figures can often precipitate unforeseen consequences, including the creation of martyrs and the galvanization of support for the targeted individual’s cause. Considering a biblical episode, the Roman execution of Jesus Christ exemplifies this phenomenon, as it ultimately contributed to the proliferation of Christianity. The decision by the Romans was a political miscalculation.
Similarly, the potential consequences of killing Adolf Hitler during World War II remain a topic of debate among historians. Some argue that if he was assassinated that could have been leveraged by the German Nazi regime to rally support and prolong the conflict.
Shouldn’t the Americans have weighed these precedents? This is where diplomacy in international relations becomes key in guiding sober approaches to conflict resolution.
Some analysts posit that Ayatollah Ali Khameini’s assassination aligns with Shiite Islam’s veneration of martyrs, potentially bolstering the Iranian regime’s narrative and fostering unity among its adherents. In light of these considerations, it is pertinent to examine whether alternative strategies, such as diplomatic engagement might not have proved more efficacious in addressing the Iranian regime’s actions by their US and Israeli opponents. A thorough evaluation of the potential outcomes of targeted killings versus alternative approaches is essential for informing effective policy decisions.
Whilst the Ayatollah Ali Khameini killing is a headline grabber to the amusement of the ill advised White House and Israel it is cooking a pot of anger among Iranians. The Iranians are mourning currently but don’t underestimate those tears.
The Value of Human Life
The oft-cited incident involving Jordanian King Hussein and Khaled Mashal serves as a damning indictment of the duplicitous nature of Netanyahu’s leadership, starkly highlighting his willingness to sacrifice human life for the sake of ideological expediency.
When Israeli agents attempted to assassinate Mashal in Amman, King Hussein intervened, leveraging his relationship with President Clinton to demand that Netanyahu provide the antidote necessary to save Mashal’s life. Netanyahu’s reluctant compliance, prompted by the threat of diplomatic fallout, only serves to underscore the cynicism with which he approaches international relations.
This episode is emblematic of a broader pattern of calculated ruthlessness, where the value of human life is invariably subordinated to the exigencies of political gain.
Killing Leadership in Order to Protect National Security?
America and Israel claim their actions are necessary to protect their borders and citizens from threats, but the relentless pursuit of security has led to a perpetual state of conflict. The narrative of safeguarding national security has become a justification for policies that often exacerbate tensions and undermine long-term stability.
They are like bullies who run to open a case of assault every time they beat someone, deflecting accountability while perpetuating the cycle of violence. Are these measures truly providing security, or are they fuelling a cycle of fear and retaliation?
International Complicity
But should we be surprised? Haven’t we always known that humanity is just a thin veneer, waiting to be stripped away by the relentless pursuit of power and self-interest?
As we gaze upon the carnage, are we not complicit in this descent into barbarism? Do we not bear some responsibility for allowing leaders like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu to justify murder as a legitimate tool of statecraft?
The calculated cold-bloodedness of these acts is breathtaking, leaving us to wonder if the very concept of human life has become a quaint anachronism.
The architects of these assassinations would have us believe that they are merely exercising their sovereign right to self-defence. But who’s left to challenge this flaky justification when the international community is complicit in this charade? The double standards are glaring: leaders who once decried terrorism now employ the same tactics, all while piously decrying the loss of life.
International Law
The unlawful killing of Iranian leaders raises profound concerns regarding the contravention of international law.
The targeted killing of a head of state or high-ranking official, absent a legitimate act of self-defence or authorisation by the United Nations Security Council, constitutes a prima facie breach of the United Nations Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which proscribes the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Furthermore, such actions infringe upon the inherent right to life enshrined in Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iran is a party. The extrajudicial nature of the killing, if confirmed, violates fundamental principles of human rights law and the Geneva Conventions, rendering it an arbitrary deprivation of life.
Customary international law, as reflected in the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference, prohibits states from undertaking assassinations or targeted killings of individuals, including those deemed to be leaders of other nations without due process. The United Nations General Assembly has consistently reaffirmed the prohibition on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, emphasising that such acts are a flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In light of these principles, the killing of Iranian leaders, if proven, would likely be deemed unlawful under international law, warranting condemnation by the international community and potentially engaging the responsibility of Israel and the United States of America.
History is Littered With Tales of Political Leadership Assassinations
The phenomenon of double standards in international relations is exemplified by the disparate responses to various instances of politically motivated assassinations.
The United States of America has played this dicy role when it comes to political assassinations. They have, in many instances, defied international law and used assassinations as a tactic of war. International Law states that “the law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor”.
Patrice Lumumba’s 1961 assassination, allegedly involving the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Belgian agents, raises questions about the extent to which Western powers prioritize their interests over the sovereignty of newly independent nations. Is it mere coincidence that Lumumba’s nationalist agenda and ties to the Soviet Union made him a target?
Thomas Sankara’s 1987 death in a coup, with alleged French involvement, highlights the perceived threats posed by some leaders to Western interests. Does this suggest that leaders who challenge the status quo are more likely to meet a violent end?
Murdered leaders are weeping at the quiet demeanour of many whilst presented with careless use of military capacity to create a people without leadership.
The legacies of Griffiths Mxenge, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. serve as a poignant reminder that the intrinsic value of human life is a universal principle, not a discretionary concept to be applied selectively. Their collective struggle for dignity, justice, and equality underscores the imperative of upholding human rights as an indivisible and inalienable entitlement.
These individuals and many others, each in their own contexts, challenged systems of oppression and advocated for the inherent worth of human life. Their enduring impact transcends geographical and ideological boundaries, highlighting the need for a consistent and principled approach to human rights.
The invocation of their memory underscores the dangers of compartmentalizing human rights and the consequences of applying moral standards in a piecemeal fashion. As you murder them what do you say about the leadership vacuum created? It is incumbent upon us to examine the implications of such selectivity and to consider the ways in which these can inform a more coherent and equitable approach to human rights.
How can the international community ensure that the struggles of these individuals are not reduced to mere symbolism, but instead serve as a catalyst for meaningful action in promoting human rights and dignity? As we navigate this dark landscape, we must confront a haunting question: have we lost sight of what it means to be human? Or is it simply that the powerful have always done as they pleased, and we’re just now noticing? The silence is deafening – and it’s making us all accomplices.
Does the ICC Have Teeth to Bite?
What even complicates matters is that the International Criminal Court (ICC), in 2024, issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, citing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. This move sparked intense debate, with some arguing it’s a necessary step towards accountability, while others see it as a politicised attack on Israel’s right to self-defence. Strangely the great Netanyahu is dictating the agenda for the international community as we speak.
The ICC’s decision highlights the double standard in international law, where powerful nations often escape accountability. Netanyahu and Gallant, accused of starving their opponents as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against civilians, continue to lead Israel’s war efforts, while the international community largely looks the other way.
This isn’t just about Israel; it’s about the principle of accountability. If leaders can disregard international law with impunity, what’s the point of having laws in the first place? The ICC’s move is a reminder that no one is above the law, but it’s also a reflection of the institution’s limitations and the selective enforcement of justice.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issues arrest warrants, triggering obligations for member states to cooperate with the court. According to the Rome Statute, ICC member states are required to arrest and surrender individuals with outstanding warrants to the ICC (Article 89). Notably, heads of state or government officials are not immune from prosecution (Article 27), emphasising the principle of accountability. Countries are also obligated to cooperate with the ICC in investigations and prosecutions (Article 86).
However, the ICC’s reliance on member states to enforce its warrants have led to inconsistent compliance, particularly when political interests are involved or if the country is not an ICC member. In practice, individuals with ICC arrest warrants often face travel restrictions, diplomatic isolation, sanctions, or asset freezes, and may be prosecuted if arrested and surrendered to the ICC. But which country will arrest Donald Trump or any of his praise singers?
The ICC’s effectiveness is thus closely tied to state cooperation, and its decisions can be influenced by geopolitics, highlighting the complexities of international justice. It is notable, and sad that this framework has not been uniformly applied, particularly in the case of Benjamin Netanyahu. This disparity underscores concerns about selective enforcement and the challenges of holding powerful individuals accountable.
Whilst the ICC is watching him on television bombing opponents, he’s potentially breaking more international laws. Whilst the world is watching the Venezuelan head of state appearing before a USA court Netanyahu is allowed to walk freely. When is the law applicable?
WHO’S TRULY AT FAULT IN CREATING A LEADERLESS IRAN?
The culpability for the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Iran extends beyond the leadership of Trump and Netanyahu, implicating the American people, the international community, and those who remain silent in the face of escalating violence. This collective inaction enables the devaluation of human life, perpetuating a cycle of victimization that transcends political affiliations. The international community’s acquiescence to policies that prioritize strategic interests over human rights has become a moral stain, underscoring a profound failure to uphold the principles of humanitarian law and protect civilian populations.
Moreover, the reckless targeting and murdering of leadership in Iran has contributed to the erosion of institutional frameworks, effectively rendering the country increasingly leaderless and vulnerable to chaos. The likely weakening or absence of effective governance and the suppression of dissenting voices exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, creating an environment where human rights abuses can thrive unchecked. This approach not only undermines regional stability but also disregards the fundamental principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, putting countless innocent lives at risk.
This situation prompts critical questions about accountability, moral responsibility, and the efficacy of diplomatic efforts in preventing conflict escalation. The international community’s role in perpetuating or mitigating this crisis warrants scrutiny, particularly in light of the impact on innocent civilians.
What are the implications of the international community’s inactions on Iran’s internal stability, and how can collective action be mobilized to prioritize human rights, support institutional development, and prevent further escalation?
THE WORLD IS BEGINNING TO FEEL THE DISQUIET OF US-ISRAELI’S ‘DECAPITATION POLICY’
Slowly the impact is creeping in. The many spectators from across the globe are beginning to feel the disquiet of the Trump-Netanyahu Decapitation Dilemma. Africa is feeling it. So is Europe, the Americas and other places globally.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz
Iran has begun to harden its stance by, among others closing the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian government’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz has precipitated a significant perturbation in global energy markets, with crude oil prices escalating to $126 per barrel, a level not witnessed in four years. This critical waterway serves as a vital conduit for approximately one-third of the world’s seaborne oil trade, 19% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments, and 14% of refined petroleum products.
The resultant disruption has far-reaching implications, affecting not only fuel prices but also manufacturing and food supplies worldwide. The closure has induced a substantial surge in oil tanker rates, with Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) experiencing a 94% increase in rates, reaching $423,736 per day.
Many Uninvolved Economies are Affected
Many of the countries in Africa import fuel. The war has made it more expensive to acquire fuel for their economies. For example, at the time of publishing, a litre of petrol was $2,25 (R37.85) in Zambia and $1,20 (R20,50) in South Africa.
Analysts have warned that this war may result in unexpected increases in the price of fuel in, for example, South Africa by next week. There’s even a suggestion that points to likely increases of R9.60 for 500ppm diesel and R9.80 for the cleaner 50ppm diesel grade. Petrol is likely, as suggested, to increase by around R5,20 (93 unleaded) and R5.70 for 95 grade.
According to news sources, nurses in Zambia are threatening to down tools after it has become too expensive to go to work and have demanded that government should increase their salaries or else they are going on strike.
Worse is still coming. It’s getting more messy, people are lashing out at their governments for stuff that’s actually being stirred up by the Trump-Netanyahu dynamic. Without protecting these governments, they’re getting the blame for something that’s not entirely their fault.
NARRATIVE POLITICS OF ASSASSINATION
The media’s role in shaping narratives surrounding political assassinations, such as the killing of Iranian leaders, has been a phenomenon of profound significance.
The manner in which Western media outlets focus on the act itself, framing it as a security issue, juxtaposed with Iranian state media’s portrayal of such events as state-sponsored terrorism, underscores the complexities of mediated reality. Many of the European and African media has been neutral and non-committal in their manner of coverage of these episodes.
This dichotomy of narrative construction influences public opinion, shaping perceptions of legitimacy and morality, and has the potential to fuel retaliatory actions, thereby escalating tensions and justifying further violence. The distortion of the historical record, resulting from conflicting narratives, undermines accountability and hampers efforts towards achieving a proper understanding of such happenings.
The CNN Effect’s propensity to privilege dramatic visuals over thorough analysis assumes particular salience in the context of political assassinations. It sensationalises representations and exacerbates cycles of violence as well as undermines efforts towards peaceful resolution. This underscores the imperative for a critical interrogation of the media’s role in shaping international relations and conflict dynamics.
By prioritising visceral imagery over contextual analysis, the CNN Effect distorts public perception, fuels emotive responses, and influences policy decisions in ways that may inadvertently escalate the conflict. Furthermore, this approach also obscures the structural and systemic factors underpinning this anomaly, reducing this complex challenge by Trump and Netanyahu to simplistic narratives of good vs evil.
A critical examination of the media’s role in this context is thus warranted, one that acknowledges the CNN Effect’s potential to shape conflict trajectories and advocates for a more nuanced, contextualized approach to reporting. By doing so, we may mitigate the perverse effects of sensationalized coverage and foster a more informed public discourse conducive to peaceful resolution.
THE PYRRHIC POLITICS OF ASSASSINATION
Israel and Netanyahu, in particular, have been involved in too many assassinations of political leaders. I do not think it is making them achieve much except to sharpen the contradictions.
More Questions Than Answers
I once read that, ‘asking questions is revolutionary’. But what happens if these questions are just too many?
· Do they think the affected will not feel the need to revenge?
· Again: is Israel and the U.S. not creating martyrs for the followers of these leaders, who will use their names as rallying points?
· The ghosts of Iranian leaders – are these the makings of a strategic masterplan or a recipe for perpetual conflict?
· What will this do to Israel’s political survival, especially considering how they were reconstructed after 1948?
· Does Israel think that they will ever reach international dominance of biblical proportions?
· Or is this a pursuit of a modern-day Masada, where the more they kill, the more they’ll be surrounded by enemies, real and imagined?
· Is the U.S.’s involvement in regime change and leader assassinations in the Middle East not going to contribute to a further rise in the number of anti-Western groups?
· Have these actions not eroded trust in U.S. and Israeli intentions, making diplomacy harder?
· Are these countries’ hands cleaner than those they target, or does it blur moral lines?
· Do the US and Israeli citizens feel safer after all these miscalculations?
· Netanyahu’s actions seem to suggest a belief in an eye-for-an-eye, but what happens when the whole reagion is blind?
· Has Israel considered the consequences of sowing opponent leadership death and despair?
· Is Israel’s pursuit of security through assassination creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict?
The world is watching – and remembering. The followers of assassinated leaders don’t become extinct; they recall their martyrs. And martyrs make for powerful recruitment tools.
The international community should be worried, not just about Israel’s actions, but about the ripple effects on global stability.
What’s obvious is that President Trump deputised by Netanyahu have shot their constituencies and the rest of the world on the foot considering the outlook of the current crisis. By assassinating their opponent’s leaders they’ve created permanent opponents and it’s never going to be easy to walk away from or act conciliatory.
Who Owns What?
The USA and Israeli stance on the Strait of Hormuz highlights the tendency to prioritize their own interests over international law.
Signing and ratifying a convention in the United Nations are two separate concepts. A member state signs when they agree with a convention and they ratify when they are prepared to be bound by the implications of the agreement as part of international law. The USA have neither signed nor ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Israel are signatories but have not ratified the agreement.
By claiming transit passage rights under UNCLOS, a convention that they haven’t ratified, they are cherry-picking rules that suit their agenda. Meanwhile, they pressure others to comply with their verdict of interpretation.
The USA warnings to Iran about closing the strait of hormuz come across as coercive, undermining the principle of sovereign equality considering that this region is shared by Iran and Oman who have ratified the agreement. Shouldn’t this be a discussion between Iran and Oman?
This approach fuels perceptions of USA and Israeli unilateralism and double standards, their disrespect for the people of the world or the United Nations, disregard for international law, straining global relations and destabilising regions like the Middle East.
Unfortunately, world citizens are the victims, bearing the brunt of these tensions and potential disruptions to global oil supplies. The ripple effects of conflict or escalated sanctions harm economies, food security, and livelihoods worldwide.
A Loser’s Game
What’s obvious is that politics of assassination are a loser’s game, where everyone ends up losing in the long run. Historically, targeted killings have often led to further escalation rather than resolution. The question is, will the involved parties (Israel and the USA) recognise the futility of this approach and seek a different path or are they above the law?
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others – George Orwell (Animal Farm)
Ndaa!!!