The rescue operation of the pilot of a downed F-15E aircraft during a mission over Iran was one of the most spectacular events of recent days. As the expert underlines, this was an operation of exceptional scale and complexity:
Over the weekend, we had a chance to witness the dramatic rescue of the pilots of a downed F-15E flying a mission over Iran. This operation was successful, although it required a tremendous effort on the part of the United States. Nearly 150 aircraft participated in the rescue and according to various estimates, between three and seven were lost. Nevertheless, the pilot was rescued – a scenario straight out of a Hollywood movie.
At the same time, there are announcements of a further escalation of air operations, which are expected to encompass an increasingly broader range of national infrastructure.
There are ongoing announcements of a further escalation of the air campaign, meaning expanded attacks on the transmission network, road communications and rail. This expands the air campaign to a scale more familiar from World War II, where the entire enemy infrastructure was widely attacked.
According to Dr Piątkowski, such a scale of operations raises serious doubts in the context of applicable international law, which has evolved significantly since the mid-20th century:
While international legal regulations were very modest during World War II, much has changed since then. Today, we have a well-developed customary law and additional regulations that precisely define what can be considered a military objective and the limits of permissible actions.
At the same time, the expert draws attention to differences in the interpretation of these principles, especially in the American approach:
The Americans are expanding the definition of a military target to include, among other things, what they define as the entirety of a state's infrastructure, even if it indirectly economically supports its military efforts. This doctrine is controversial because it significantly expands the list of targets considered legitimate – it also includes facilities whose destruction could undermine a state's economic capacity and, therefore, its ability to conduct military operations.
This approach is met with criticism from some countries and may impact international relations:
We are already seeing announcements from some countries, such as the United Kingdom, that they are very critical of conducting missions from bases located on their territory if they exceed the bounds of legality. Such voices are becoming more numerous, demonstrating that we are dealing with a real interpretational dispute.
Despite ongoing mediation attempts, including with the participation of Gulf countries, the prospects for ending the conflict remain limited.
Despite last-ditch talks mediated by Pakistan and the Gulf states, Iran appears to believe it can continue the conflict and secure favourable terms for its conclusion, including the lifting of sanctions. For political reasons, these terms are unacceptable to the American side, so there is currently no room for compromise.
According to Dr Piątkowski, this means a further intensification of military operations and an expansion of their scope:
I fear that we will see further bombings and airstrikes, gradually expanding across the entire territory of Iran, targeting power plants, power grids, roads, railways, bridges and viaducts. The scale of these operations is reminiscent of the air campaigns of the late 20th century, but at the same time – in terms of intensity – they may be even greater.
The expert also emphasises that the current situation is unique in recent decades:
We haven't seen such an extensive air campaign in almost 30 years. Recently, infrastructure has been destroyed in places like Iraq and during the bombing of Serbia but the scale of the current operations is much larger and more reminiscent of the realities of World War II than contemporary conflicts.
How the situation develops in the coming days will be crucial both for the further course of military operations and for assessing their compliance with applicable international law.
Source: Dr Mateusz Piątkowski, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz
An Update
Dr Przemysław Piotr Damski from the Faculty of International and Political Studies at the University of Lodz also discusses the situation:
The United States' involvement in the aggression against Iran, along with Israel, was controversial from the very beginning. This action was inconsistent with international law. Furthermore, neither the United States nor Israel has presented any credible evidence that Iran is rebuilding its nuclear programme. Specifically, this refers, of course, to research on nuclear weapons.
Thus, the United States and Israel failed to justify their actions.
The expert also notes the effectiveness of both sides' actions:
While Israel managed to achieve its goals, the extent to which the United States was achieving its objectives was questionable from the outset, especially after a significant portion of the Iranian regime's representatives were removed and later replaced by new leaders.
The commentary also assesses the consequences of the conflict for the region and international markets:
As a result of the US-Israeli aggression, Iran attacked US allies in the Persian Gulf and led to a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which caused an increase in oil prices in the markets.
The United States, therefore, faced a situation in which it was failing to achieve its goals and, at the same time, contributed to the emergence of another – economic threat.
Dr Przemysław Piotr Damski also emphasises that the American side's reactions demonstrated the weakness of its negotiating position:
The nature of the American demands (e.g. unblocking the strait) and the threats supported by the president's vulgar language indicated limited possibilities of enforcing them and weakened the US negotiating position.
The US administration's actual withdrawal from its demands has not improved the situation and has actually placed the United States at a disadvantage internationally. On the one hand, a degree of de-escalation is occurring, with oil and gas prices likely to begin falling and a relaxation of tensions on international markets. On the other hand, American prestige and international standing have suffered.
The expert also addresses the broader implications for international alliances:
With the lack of benefits for the United States and its weakening international standing, NATO's deterrence capabilities, and therefore those of its members, are weakening. The US is demonstrating its inability to effectively defend its allies, as evidenced by the exposure of Arab states in the Persian Gulf and their inability to defend themselves against Iranian attacks.
In the expert's opinion, the balance of US actions remains clearly unfavourable:
As for the United States, we are not observing any significant military progress, because it is difficult to call bombings that do not bring specific benefits military progress, nor are we observing any political gains. We are actually seeing a hardening of the Iranian state and regime in its resistance.
Dr Damski underlines that the current situation cannot be considered over:
It appears that a potential ceasefire does not resolve the existing problems, although the American administration, and especially President Trump, may wish to present the ceasefire as a success.
The expert also points to long-term limitations on the American side:
In the long term, the United States cannot wage military action against Iran. A potential ground operation and subsequent securing of occupied territories is a much more serious undertaking than what we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq, countries where, despite allied support, American successes are elusive. Continuous air attacks on Iran are also impossible, as this would significantly deplete American military resources, which the US must have in the event of a conflict with China.
Some allied countries, including Poland, have contracts for weapons orders from the United States, and while the United States is forced to increase production to replenish its inventory, the needs and orders of allied countries are secondary.
Finally, Dr Przemysław Damski emphasises that the issue of the Strait of Hormuz and relations with Iran remains open:
The situation regarding the Strait of Hormuz and Iran remains unresolved.
This may lead European countries to treat the United States as a country that will act unilaterally, meaning without consulting its allies. This will encourage the European Union to ensure the security of its natural resources supplies from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz. This, in turn, leads to an agreement with Iran in the event of a future Iranian-American conflict.
Source: Dr Przemysław Piotr Damski, Faculty of International and Political Studies, University of Lodz
Edit: Kacper Szczepaniak, Centre for Brand Communications, University of Lodz
