FnF News
FNF News | International Law & Global Power Politics Published: June 14, 2025 By: Khadija Khan, International Law Correspondent
Trump and Netanyahu Accused of Coordinating Israel’s Strike on Iran: Global Legal Backlash Mounts
New York / Tehran / Washington / Jerusalem — New allegations are emerging that former U.S. President Donald Trump had prior knowledge of Israel’s attack on Iran’s diplomatic site in Damascus this past April. A growing number of international observers and security analysts believe the strike may have been part of a pre-coordinated strategy between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with both leaders allegedly playing a “good cop, bad cop” routine in the weeks leading up to the escalation.
Speculation of Pre-Coordinated Strike
The Iranian consulate in Damascus was struck on April 1, 2025, killing several senior IRGC commanders. The attack marked a major escalation in Israel-Iran tensions. Shortly afterward, Iran launched retaliatory drone and missile strikes, citing its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
But a timeline of diplomatic and intelligence movements in the region suggests that the attack may not have been a surprise for all parties. Multiple embassies in Israel reportedly began evacuating staff and family members nearly a week before the Damascus strike. Additionally, certain U.S. military and intelligence assets were quietly repositioned in the Gulf region days ahead of the incident.
“It wasn’t just a coincidence,” said a senior analyst at the Quincy Institute. “There’s mounting evidence that some Western and Israeli officials had foreknowledge of the strike. Trump, who maintains close ties with Netanyahu, may have greenlit the operation or at least been briefed.”
Trump and Netanyahu’s Ties
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have long enjoyed a close political relationship. During Trump’s presidency, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, and supported Israel’s actions across the region. Even after leaving office, Trump has remained vocal in support of Netanyahu’s government and hardline stance on Iran.
Reports from Israeli media indicate that high-level coordination between officials in Trump’s orbit and Israeli defense circles remained active in early 2025. One unnamed Israeli security official told Haaretz, “Netanyahu knew Trump still had influence over U.S. regional assets, and they used that to their advantage.”
Critics have voiced strong disapproval of both leaders’ actions. “Attacking Iran in this way was reckless,” said one former U.S. diplomat. “Diplomacy should have been the first and only priority. Trump and Netanyahu are among the worst actors on the international stage when it comes to de-escalation and peace.”
Embassies Evacuated Early
A pattern of early withdrawals by several diplomatic missions in Israel has added weight to suspicions of foreknowledge. The embassies of Australia, Germany, and Canada issued vague advisories and temporarily relocated families of diplomats days before the strike in Damascus. The U.S. embassy, while not publicizing its movements, was also reported to have minimized non-essential staff in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
“We were told to ‘limit visibility and prepare for an unexpected regional event,’” said a former diplomatic staffer anonymously. “It was clear that something was brewing.”
Iran Responds and the West Reacts
Iran’s response to the consulate bombing was swift, but instead of international support, Tehran was met with harsh condemnation from Western capitals. The U.S., U.K., and EU states accused Iran of “escalating tensions” while largely ignoring the original Israeli airstrike that began the chain of events.
Tehran argued that its response fell under Article 51 of the UN Charter. “We were attacked on sovereign diplomatic ground. We have every right to defend ourselves,” said Iran’s ambassador to the UN.
Western leaders did not accept this argument. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken labeled Iran’s response “reckless and destabilizing,” without acknowledging Israel’s breach of international norms.
A Larger Pattern of Selective Legality
This incident has reignited debates about the double standard in applying Article 51. Legal experts and diplomats from the Global South argue that Western-aligned states are freely granted the right to self-defense, while their adversaries are denied it.
Dr. Mary Ellen O’Connell of the University of Notre Dame emphasized, “The UN Charter does not distinguish between allies and enemies. But the political treatment of Article 51 tells a very different story.”
Pakistan and the Global South Speak Out
In a strong statement at the UN Security Council, Pakistan condemned Israel’s attack as “unprovoked, unjustified, and illegitimate.” The country expressed solidarity with Iran and asserted that Iran had a legal right to respond.
Alongside Pakistan, Brazil, South Africa, China, and Russia submitted a memorandum to the UN General Assembly in May 2025, demanding the equal application of the UN Charter’s provisions.
“If international law is not applied equally, it becomes meaningless,” South Africa’s representative warned.
Media and Public Framing
Western media has been criticized for reinforcing these legal double standards. A University of Geneva study found that in coverage of recent Middle East conflicts, the term “self-defense” was used far more often to describe Israeli military actions than those by Palestinian or Iranian forces.
Dr. Lina Abu Ghaida, who co-authored the study, said, “Media outlets help shape which narratives are seen as legal. Ignoring one side’s right to self-defense while amplifying another’s creates a misleading global picture.”
The Risk of Global Breakdown
Legal scholars warn that if this trend continues, global conflict may worsen. “If countries stop trusting the legal system and act outside it, the whole world becomes less safe,” said Dr. O’Connell.
Iran’s case is becoming a turning point in how international law is perceived. If legal protections are reserved only for a few, then the foundation of post-WWII global order may begin to collapse.
Sources:
- UN Charter, Article 51
- Reuters and Al Jazeera coverage of April 2025 Iran-Israel events
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft reports
- University of Geneva Journalism and War Lab study
- Statements from U.S. and Israeli officials
- Haaretz reports, April–May 2025
- Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch press releases
- UN Security Council transcripts and statements from Pakistan, China, South Africa
- Interviews with Dr. Mary Ellen O’Connell, Prof. Makau Mutua, and Dr. Lina Abu Ghaida