When The U.S. Bombs Iran, What Can Stop China From Going After Taiwan?

-Analysis-

BERLIN — The typhoon season in the South China Sea tends to wind down by autumn. The waters settle, the heat lets up. Ideal conditions for launching an invasion.

So let us imagine for a moment (and hope it stays in the realm of fiction) that China decides to attack Taiwan this year, sending in heavy destroyers and amphibious landing ships, with strategic bombers circling above.

How would the United States and Europe respond?

You can almost already hear the Western leaders’ outraged declarations: A blatant violation of the global order! A flagrant breach of international law!

All true, of course. But it would still sound strangely hollow.

Civilization milestone

Wasn’t it just recently that politicians and commentators in the West, with near unanimity, concluded that the violation of international law by Israel and the United States in their attack on Iran was, under the circumstances politically justifiable and strategically necessary? Such considerations, in this specific case, should simply be brushed aside.

But let’s leave the hypotheticals for now.

Exactly 80 years ago, the founding members of the United Nations signed the UN Charter in San Francisco, laying the cornerstone of modern international law. At the time, people in Europe were still picking through the ruins of bombed-out cities, Holocaust survivors were still searching for family and friends. The Charter came out of that moment: an attempt to carve a path forward from the depths of horror. A civilizational milestone.

Quick cut: Are you bored already? We know this must sound like one of those outdated speeches that seem detached from a world where the strong countries of the planet can bomb, annex, and dominate weaker ones with impunity. We know that international law is for dreamers and bleeding hearts.

If that’s what you’re thinking, then this piece is written especially for you.

The UN Security Council has been hopelessly paralyzed for years by its own veto system.

Today, eight decades after the Charter was signed, the so-called rules-based order is looking pretty battered. The U.S. has slapped sanctions on the International Criminal Court for investigating Israel’s war in Gaza. The UN Security Council, which is supposed to sanction violations of international law, has been hopelessly paralyzed for years by its own veto system. And now, of all people, the Chancellor of Germany, a man who regularly lectures others about respecting international law, says Israel is doing “our dirty work” in Iran.

If only it were just that simple: international law gradually falling apart because no one really sticks to it anymore. Then we could at least start stockpiling canned tuna and double-A batteries. But Germany’s example shows how much messier things really are. A few snapshots from the past three years tell the story.

Ukraine: For more than three years, Vladimir Putin has been trying to crush Ukraine’s resistance, by abducting children, massacring civilians, torturing prisoners, and leveling entire regions. Throughout, German politicians from every party have spoken of “Russia’s war of aggression in violation of international law” and called for global solidarity. The breach of law is so stark that even countries like South Africa, India, and Brazil are expected to side with Ukraine. Why haven’t they already? In this case, international law is invoked without hesitation.

As Gaza slid further into catastrophe, leading German officials offered only “grave concern”

Gaza: After the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, Germany’s pledge of unconditional support for Israel was expected. But for the year-and-a-half that followed, as Gaza slid further into catastrophe, leading German officials offered only “grave concern.” Carefully worded statements spoke of how further blocking aid to civilians “could” be a violation of international law. Not until the end of May did Merz declare that “the German Chancellor” must speak out if “international humanitarian law is now truly being violated.” The government had dragged its feet until there was no choice left.

Sudan: What’s happening in Sudan, anyway? If you don’t look, you don’t have to care.

Now, with the Iran attacks, a fourth strategy has joined the mix: not just invoking the law, ignoring it, or dragging things out, but brushing it off entirely.

Political Hamlet syndrome

For instance, political scientist Herfried Münkler recently wrote in Die Zeit that those who bring up legal objections are suffering from “political Hamlet syndrome.” He argues that Israel, surrounded by enemies and under threat of a future nuclear attack, can’t afford to sit around pondering legalities. In this context, “international law,” he writes, means very little.

A Süddeutsche Zeitung commentary titled “The Right of the Strongest Is the Reality We Live In” took a similar line, saying the world is simply more complicated than any law can capture, and that Israel’s actions in Iran can’t be compared to Russia’s war on Ukraine. But no one was making that comparison in the first place.

The alternative to law is arbitrary rule and anarchic violence.

This new German shrugging of the shoulders contrasts sharply with what prominent legal scholars are saying. Their tone is somber, regretful. In an interview with Legal Tribune Online, former Federal Constitutional Court judge Andreas Paulus was asked whether political reasons can override the law.

“International law,” he replied, “applies, like all law, regardless of political motives. In fact, it’s the result of those very considerations.” He went on to express alarm at “the indifference of other states, when they make decisions about acts of war while entirely ignoring legal assessments.” The alternative to law, he warned, is “arbitrary rule and anarchic violence.” And who really wants that?

Who, indeed?

The new contempt for rules and law, once considered the mark of civilized society, is now gaining ground thanks to a broader political shift. The old liberal order, with its regulatory overreach, moral high ground, and tendency to use law as a shield against public opinion, is out of favor.

You can see it most clearly in migration policy. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance says that any court ruling preventing deportations “literally goes against the will of the American people.” In Europe, this thinking is echoed by leaders like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen. Today, political momentum belongs to those who claim to defend the will of the people and national interests, even when those clash with existing laws.

Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays

Seasoned international lawyers know that the system has always depended on its own breaches. Andreas Paulus puts it like this: “The fact that someone breaks a rule doesn’t make it invalid. Law and reality never fully align. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need law.”

But the sheer number of exceptions, the constant ignoring of the law for supposedly good reasons, shows that the ground beneath our feet is shifting. Those who keep setting popular will or realpolitik against the law are eventually going to win. If we keep overlooking, waiting out, or brushing off violations, or just sighing that we live in a world where the weak are at the mercy of the strong, then the whole legal framework will eventually collapse.

It is no accident that this debate is flaring up around Israel. The country’s security situation is unique. The threats it faces — an Iranian nuclear bomb, Hamas terrorism, Hezbollah fighters, Houthi rockets, Islamist groups in Syria — are many and real. International law, as it was written in 1945, gives plenty of leeway to respond. It is easy to understand that Israel cannot afford to wait for a nuclear strike.

But the wise stance taken by many legal scholars still applies. The individual case is what justifies the existence of law. If individual cases turn into a pattern, though, even Israel should hear the alarm bells.

Violating international law does not guarantee results.

Violating international law does not guarantee results. With Israel’s strikes on Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, it remains unclear what the endgame is. Even if all enemies are defeated, all centrifuges destroyed, and every rocket neutralized, neither Trump nor Netanyahu has offered a vision for what comes next.

As human rights lawyer Wolfgang Kaleck noted recently: illegal state actions often leave wounds that never fully heal. The American-backed coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s helped pave the way for the rise of the mullahs. The Iraq War under George W. Bush led to the rise of ISIS. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank still feeds extremist propaganda to this day.

Conversations with diplomats outside Europe about the West’s credibility on international law have become deeply unsettling. You could argue that in today’s dog-eat-dog world, the time for hand-wringing over the “Global South” is long past. But if you take that path, you lose the right to complain when our influence fades into nothing in just a few short years. Anyone who treats international law as optional, something to follow only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, cannot expect other countries to take their pleas seriously.

Now think of what that means, for example, for Taiwan.