Because international law among nations has no enforcement mechanism, nations have picked and chose which laws they would and would not observe. That’s certainly the case for the U.S. From Craig Murray at unz.com:
In finding there is a plausible case against Israel, the International Court of Justice treated with contempt the argument from Israel that the case should be dismissed as it is exercising its right of self-defence. This argument took up over half of Israel’s pleadings. Not only did the court find there is a plausible case of genocide, the court only mentioned self-defence once in its interim ruling – and that was merely to note that Israel had claimed it. Para 41:
That the ICJ has not affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence is perhaps the most important point in this interim order. It is the dog that did not bark. The argument which every western leader has been using is spurned by the ICJ.
Now the ICJ did not repeat that an occupying power has no right of self-defence. It did not need to. It simply ignored Israel’s specious assertion.
It could do that because what it went on to iterate went way beyond any plausible assertion of self-defence. What struck me most about the ICJ ruling was that the Order went into far more detail about the evidence of genocide than it needed to. Its description was stark.
Bomb bomb bomb Iran, Iran with 86 million people?
I’m into studying WAR but the 1980’s Iran/Iraq was some dayam this is brutal stuff.
They don’t fear the one way trip to the big Valhalla in the sky.
Maybe a show of loyalty to the indispensable ally with some week long missile barrage while warning Iran of where they are going?