Recently, Anwar appeared in Al Jazeera(follow link below) - what was shocking was that Anwar blamed ISRAEL only for the ILLEGAL WAR on Iran - and did not name US - WHY? We all know that it was the US and Israel that are guilty of commencing this WRONGFUL War on Iran - against the principles in the United Nations Charter, and against International Law - was the Al-Jazeera VDO edited? Anwar must clarify.
Then, worry also arises, in a recent media report that came after the Al-Jazeera report - where Anwar again says 'United States-backed Israeli attacks on Iran - GOOD that this time he points the finger to US - but what does he mean ''United States-backed Israeli' - because both US and Israel attacked IRAN - so better to state the FACTS rather than using terms like ''United States-backed Israeli' or 'Israel=backed United States'..
Malaysia's Attorney General Dusuki and Communication Minister Fahmi must spend time with PM Anwar Ibrahim to educate him on the LAWS about this WAR..international law.
1. The US and Israel STARTED this ILLEGAL War against IRAN;
2. IRAN used its 'RIGHT TO DEFEND', which seems to be in accordance with UN Charter Principles, and International Law.
3. Iran has NOT COMMENCED War against any of the Middle Eastern nation states, and NEITHER has these nation states declared war against IRAN. What has been targeted by IRAN has been armed forces bases of the US(or maybe Israel) in these countries... and other facilities used by the US/Israel - ports, airports, etc...
4. After some of these US bases have been destroyed - some US forces is making using of other spaces like Hotels and other premises, where civilians also stay, to continue to carry out military action - which UNFORTUNATELY turns these premises also into legitimate military targets for IRAN --- and US/Israel may also be accused of using HUMAN SHIELDS. Armed forces establishment should be distinct - and free of civilian population.
5. Israel is NOW attacking Lebanon, this a wrong ACT OF WAR - the say that their target is Hezbollah - but Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon - just because US and/or Israel calls them a terrorist group does not make them a terrorist organization - Wonder whether Malaysia also classifies the Hezbollah as terrorist - following US's position?
LEBANON - democratic system - 64 seats for Muslims (27 for Shi'ite and 27 for Sunni,...) and 64 for Christians - INTERESTING SYSTEM
Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic operating under a confessionalist system that distributes political power among its various religious communities. After the Taif Agreement of 1989 are set out in the table below:
Parliament of Lebanon seat allocation Confession Before Taif After Taif Maronite Catholic 30 34 Eastern Orthodox 11 14 Melkite Catholic 6 8 Armenian Orthodox 4 5 Armenian Catholic 1 1 Protestant 1 1 Other Christian minorities 1 1 Total Christians 54 64 Sunni 20 27 Shi'ite 19 27 Alawite 0 2 Druze 6 8 Total Muslims + Druze 45 64 Total 99 128
Under Lebanon's sectarian power-sharing system (confessionalism), top government positions are reserved by religion. Based on the 1943 National Pact, the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of Parliament a Shia Muslim.Following the 2022 Lebanese general elections, Hezbollah holds13 seats in the 128-member Parliament.
ANWAR must ACT without FEAR or FAVOUR - if US did WRONG, say it clearly....
If Anwar (and Malaysia) takes the position that they will NOT CRITICIZE US AND/OR TRUMP for their illegal acts against IRAN, Lebanon and Gaza - then better SAY NOTHING... not just condemn Israel (and leave out US) - After the Al-Jazeera interview, Anwar tries to make things 'right' - by naming US as the CO-PERPETRATOR of the illegal war against IRAN - but do not just say 'United States-backed Israeli attacks on Iran' - when it was a JOINT attach of US and Israel...ANWAR IS EMBARRASSING MALAYSIA - Should we consider getting a STRONGER Prime Minister who will act without fear or favour - If the US did WRONG - then SAY that US and TRUMP violated UN Charter and International Law - Full STOP. Most of the countries in the world know it is SO...
With regard to TRUMP and the US - our Prime Minister have been found 'wanting'
# When US threatened to increase Tariff to 24% - PM Anwar ran to get US to reduce tariff - not to even 10%(like Singapore) but to ONLY 19%; To get US to agree, our PM agreed to invest/buy US a sum of about RM1 Trillion. So, Malaysia
Malaysia has committed to US$242.56 billion (RM1.14 trillion) in purchases and investments in the United States as part of efforts to narrow the trade imbalance between the two countries...The deals made between Malaysia and the US include the procurement of Boeing aircraft by Malaysia Aviation Group (MAG) worth US$19 billion as part of a long-term, phased plan to renew and expand its fleet capacity.Multinational companies are set to procure goods in the semiconductor, aerospace, and data centre sectors worth a total of US$150 billion over five years.Petronas has committed to the annual procurement of liquefied natural gas valued at US$3.4 billion.Telekom Malaysia Bhd will procure telecommunications products amounting to US$119 million, while Tenaga Nasional Bhd will buy coal valued at US$42.6 million annually.Furthermore, Malaysia will undertake cross-border investments in the United States amounting to US$70 billion over 10 years. - NST, 4/8/2025
PROBLEM is all these RM1.4 trillion deals is NOT specifically linked to the US-Malaysia Trade Agreement (see White House Website for the agreement) - because the QUESTION is whether the cancellation/termination of the US-Malaysia Agreement - will also NULIFY the other RM1.14 Trillion agreement # since the RM1.14 Trillion deals/commitments/agreements are NOT mentioned AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND MALAYSIA ON RECIPROCAL TRADE - I doubt we can cancel the RM1.14 Trillion deals - Malaysia may have to continue to spend RM1.14 Trillion even if the Trade Agreement is CANCELLED - This foolishness or 'mistake' by PM Anwar Ibrahim could be said to add on RM1.14 Trillion to Malaysia's financial liabilities, which may have to be fulfilled within 10 years > DID ANWAR IBRAHIM JUST INCREASE MALAYSIA'S DEBT AND FINANCIAL LIABILITIES ???.
Note, that as of mid-2025, Malaysia’s total government debt and liabilities stood at RM1.69 trillion, did Anwar (both PM and Finance Minister) just increase it by RM1.14 Trillion by reason of the commitment to spend US$242.56 billion (RM1.14 trillion) in purchases and investments in the United States? IF YES, then has ANWAR managed to put Malaysia in a far worst state of affairs in less than 4 years compared to Najib whose IMDB cost about RM50 Billion? Can Malaysia go back on this commitment to spend RM1.14 Trillion in US?
After call with Pezeshkian, Anwar denounces ‘US-backed Israeli attacks’ on Iran
KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has denounced in the strongest terms the United States-backed Israeli attacks on Iran, following a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to discuss the escalating conflict in the Middle East.
In a statement released today, Anwar said he conveyed Malaysia’s deepest condolences to the people of Iran for the significant losses suffered, including high-level political and military figures as well as innocent civilians, children, and other non-combatants.
“Malaysia condemns any action targeting civilians, as it clearly violates international law, humanitarian principles and the values of justice,” Anwar said.
He said that during their conversation, Pezeshkian had indicated Iran’s willingness to negotiate, but only on the condition of a permanent cessation of the war.
Anwar stressed that any peace efforts must be grounded in justice and accountability, warning that past experience in Gaza and Lebanon has shown that ceasefires without firm guarantees only lead to a repeated cycle of violence.
“Malaysia believes that true peace demands a comprehensive resolution, in order to guarantee the safety of all parties and restore human dignity in the West Asia region,” he said.
Anwar also expressed concern for friendly nations in the Gulf that have been negatively affected by the widening conflict.
He reaffirmed Malaysia’s solidarity with Iran and expressed appreciation for Pezeshkian’s recognition of Malaysia’s support. - Malay Mail, 27/3/2026
COMMENT | United States President Donald Trump reportedly told New York Times journalists that he “did not feel constrained by any international laws, norms, checks, or balances”.
And by saying the only limits on his ability to use American military might were “my (his) own morality” and “my (his) own mind”, this prompted a response from the Iranian Foreign Minister who said, “international law is dead!”.
It is therefore extremely challenging, at least at this juncture, to discuss this conflict strictly from the international law paradigm.
Nonetheless, one of the lingering questions revolves around the legality of Iran’s strikes on US bases located in Gulf states under international law.
It’s definitely a legal minefield. When people ask me if these strikes violate the sovereignty of the Gulf states, the answer seems to depend on which lens you’re looking through. It also depends on who pulled the trigger first.
Yes, the answer is not as straightforward as it may appear in political rhetoric.
On Feb 28, 2026, tensions between Iran and the US-Israeli alliance erupted into a direct military confrontation after coordinated strikes targeted Iranian infrastructure, military facilities, and civilian targets. In response, Tehran launched a large-scale counter-offensive.
Iranian operations, nonetheless, have not been confined to Israeli or US forces, which directly engaged in the illegal aggression against Iran.
The expansion of the battlefield beyond the immediate combatants has duly triggered a major legal debate: If US forces launch attacks on Iran from bases located in other countries, does international law permit Iran to strike those bases in return?
Legally speaking, the US-Israel attack against Iran is clearly illegal and unlawful under international law as it violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. It is a slam-dunk case of aggression, thus violating the Rome Statute.
To be fair, Iran has every right to be utterly frustrated with Trump because the state was attacked while still holding a negotiation with the US.
The Omani foreign minister rightly remarked, “Whatever your view of Iran, this war is not of their own making.”
Even former CIA chief John Brennan defended Iran by saying, “Iran was not a threat to America for which a war should be started. The Trump administration started the war by lying.”
Enabling acts of aggression
Let us dive into the issue by referring to the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), which defines acts of aggression in several forms.
Article 3(f) states that aggression includes: “The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.”
Needless to say, from a legal standpoint, this provision carries significant implications. If a Gulf state allows its territory to be used as a launch platform for attacks on Iran, legal experts believe it is not simply hosting foreign forces.
Au contraire, it may be considered legally responsible for enabling an act of aggression. In such a scenario, the host state may risk losing the legal protections normally associated with neutrality. Instead, it could be seen as a participant in the conflict, even if indirectly.
Another relevant concept envisaged by international law is that of co-belligerency. Once a state knowingly allows its territory to be used for offensive military operations against another country, it may be considered to have effectively entered the conflict itself.
And under such circumstances, its legal status as a neutral party - under the legal framework established by the Hague Conventions governing neutrality in war - may be seriously challenged.
This is because by providing bases, airspace, or logistical infrastructure for military operations, the host state may be seen as placing its territory and resources at the disposal of one side of the conflict. Ergo, once that threshold is crossed, the theatre of war may legally extend into that state’s territory.
Becoming legitimate targets
It seems to me that the aforesaid interpretation significantly complicates the narrative that Gulf states are merely passive hosts for foreign military deployments.
Some lawyers argue that the responsibility for the widening battlefield does not lie solely with Tehran. They are of the view that the expanding war between Iran, the US, and Israel is raising complex legal questions about sovereignty, neutrality, and the limits of self-defence.
It is a trite that under international law, states cannot provide their territory as platforms for military operations against any sovereign state while simultaneously claiming the protections reserved for neutral actors.
Hence, if foreign military forces are allowed to conduct attacks from bases located within their borders, those bases may become legitimate targets at least under the logic of self-defence.
And as duly expected, Iran has sought to argue that its military attacks against the US, including some US military bases located in Gulf states, are legally justified under the doctrine of self-defence duly enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Iran has taken a position that, under the strict lens of international law, several Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan, cannot be allowed to supply the instruments of war while expecting the privileges of peace.
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law. - Malaysiakini, 29/3/2026
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment