Professor of Global Security at Oxford, Co-director of ELAC (IHL, Law & Ethics of War, Attitudes toward Violence)
Janina Dill
Iran 🇮🇷
The unsubstantiated claim that Iranians wanted regime change curtesy of US/Israeli bombs has lost all plausibility as the air campaign caused casualties, wrecked the economy, & hardened the regime’s grip on power, contributing to the unpopularity of the war "at home".
Americans see local consent for U.S. military intervention as not only a “practical concern” but also as a “matter of moral principle,” writes @janinadill.bsky.social.
The research article in International Security is now open access here:
The list of countries threatened with U.S. military intervention is growing
· Venezuela 🇻🇪
· Iran 🇮🇷
· Cuba 🇨🇺
· Greenland 🇬🇱
· Canada 🇨🇦
…just this year!
Do they all want "Liberation"? No, I argue in
@foreignaffairs.com
In each case, U.S. policy makers claim the local population wants “liberation”. These claims need to be interrogated. Consent to intervention is a powerful moral justification. Local preferences are, in many cases, hard to establish.
direct.mit.edu/isec/article...
Canada 🇨🇦 & Greenland 🇬🇱
In some cases, like Canada and Greenland, we can hear the local population rejecting U.S. military intervention, loud and clear! These potential interventions are correspondingly unpopular in the United States.
Claiming local consent without evidence it not only morally wrong; it is also bad politics.
The piece in @foreignaffairs.com is here: www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state...
Moreover, Americans care about what the local population actually wants.
I draw on joint experimental work with Livia Schubiger & Emily Myers, in @intsecurity.bsky.social, which shows that local consent increases public support for military intervention in the United States.
