The commentary focuses on the military operations of the United States and Israel against Iran, asserting that these acts constitute clear violations of international law. It suggests that the future assessments of these actions will be made based on their outcomes rather than their legality or the circumstances surrounding their initiation. The author draws parallels between contemporary conflict and the historical context of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, specifically referencing the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The author reflects on the international community's support for the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, which was seen as a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks orchestrated by Al-Qaeda under Taliban rule. In contrast, the 2003 Iraq invasion faced significant backlash and division within Western nations, primarily due to the later disproven claims regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. This historical perspective serves to highlight a concerning trend in international military interventions, where even justified actions might be overshadowed by the failures that follow.

The comparison of Donald Trump's rhetoric and military strategies against Iran raises profound questions about the legitimacy of his actions in contrast to George W. Bush's Iraq invasion. The article posits that Trump's approach may represent an even greater departure from international legal standards, tapping into a larger discourse regarding the ethical implications of such military campaigns and the perception of U.S. foreign policy in the global arena.