Israel’s Actions vs. U.S. Red-Flag Laws: Israel’s unprovoked strikes on Iran, like the June 2025 attack killing 78, including civilians, aim to preempt a perceived nuclear threat without evidence of an imminent attack. U.S. red-flag laws allow temporary firearm removal based on court-assessed imminent danger, requiring judicial oversight and evidence. Israel’s actions lack equivalent legal process, relying on unilateral intelligence claims, unlike the U.S.’s structured, individual-focused approach.
International Law on Assassinations: Assassinating Iranian leaders (e.g., IRGC’s Salami, Bagheri) to counter a hypothetical nuclear threat violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting force absent an armed attack or Security Council approval. Preemptive self-defense requires an imminent, overwhelming threat with no alternative, per the International Court of Justice. Israel’s claim of Iran’s uranium stockpile for 15 weapons lacks verified immediacy, rendering such killings unlawful aggression.
Sanctions and War Crimes: Israel’s attacks on residential areas (e.g., Tehran’s Shahrak-e Mahallati) breach international humanitarian law, targeting civilians and violating proportionality. The absence of court-ordered sanctions or robust war crime scrutiny stems from U.S. vetoes in the UN Security Council and Israel’s non-membership in the ICC, shielding it from accountability. This contrasts with Iran’s NPT compliance and IAEA inspections, while Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal evades scrutiny.
Conclusion: Israel’s strikes lack legal grounding under international law, unlike U.S. red-flag laws’ judicial basis. Assassinations and civilian attacks constitute aggression and war crime.
>>507590455
>hey Luke, how's things in Indiana?
are you doxxing somone anon?
who is that?