{"id":5665,"date":"2025-06-18T21:05:13","date_gmt":"2025-06-18T19:05:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/?p=5665"},"modified":"2025-06-18T21:05:34","modified_gmt":"2025-06-18T19:05:34","slug":"israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/div><\/p>\n

But suppose the safety of the State is endangered; our foresight can not extend too far. \u00a0Are we to delay averting our destruction until it has become inevitable?… If an unknown man takes aim at me in the middle of a forest I am not yet certain that he wishes to kill me; must I allow him time to fire in order to be sure of his intent? Is there any reasonable casuist who would deny me the right to forestall the act?… Must we await he danger? Must we let the storm gather strength when it might be scattered at its rising?<\/p>
\n

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), 248-249<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote><\/p>\n

Resuming and Recontextualizing <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The legal and strategic implications of Israel\u2019s aerial offensive inside Iran \u2013 unprecedented in both scope and timing \u2013 are difficult to overstate. This was not retaliation. There was no missile barrage, no chemical warhead in the sky, no mass-casualty provocation. Ramadan had just ended. The region was diplomatically active, not ablaze. American, French, and Saudi officials were brokering normalization talks between Israel and Riyadh. The West wanted calm.<\/p>\n

Netanyahu chose escalation.<\/p>\n

Or did he?<\/p>\n

\"TheLook closer, and the logic begins to snap into place \u2013 albeit under intense scrutiny and through a narrow legal aperture. There was no armed attack that might clearly trigger the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Israel acted not in response to violence, but to intelligence. This was anticipatory self-defense: a controversial exception to the general prohibition on the use of force. The legal test for self-defence\u2013 drawn from the 19th-century Caroline<\/em> doctrine and later jurisprudence \u2013 demands that the necessity of self-defense be \u201cinstant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Israeli and allied intelligence, Iran has recently accelerated its uranium enrichment to nearly 60% \u2013 a technical hair\u2019s breadth from weapons-grade \u2013 and has been stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. In short: time was running out. Israel assessed that it had no legal, political, or diplomatic safety valve remaining to forestall a clandestine Iranian nuclear breakout. So Netanyahu made a decision: to act unilaterally, launch precision strikes on high-value targets, eliminate nuclear scientists and senior members of Iran\u2019s military command. And \u2013 news that has surfaced since my earlier commentary \u2013 his hit list reportedly included Iran\u2019s highest political and religious authority: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: this is not a minor escalation. It edges toward the decapitation of a sovereign regime\u2019s leadership. That\u2019s not just militarily risky \u2013 it tests the boundaries of international law in ways few democratic states have dared since 1945.<\/p>\n

Netanyahu frames this campaign as an act of self-defense \u2013 not in response to an armed attack<\/em>, but based on classified intelligence, strategic timing, and a judgment that the threshold of necessity had been crossed, even if quietly. And here lies the legal fault line.<\/p>\n

I won\u2019t sugarcoat it: Netanyahu\u2019s record on truth-telling, particularly on Iran, is thin. His history of bombastic claims and doomsday rhetoric \u2013 hilariously lampooned <\/a>by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show<\/em> \u2013 undermines his credibility. His tendency to blur threat inflation with national urgency (not to mention political and even personal motives) should be met with healthy skepticism.<\/p>\n

But even a broken clock is right twice a day. In this case, Netanyahu may be right.<\/p>\n

Credible, seasoned, reasoned voices within the Israeli security establishment \u2013 many of whom are far more measured and rational than Netanyahu \u2013 have backed the assessment that Iran is sprinting toward breakout capacity. These are not alarmists. These are professionals whose job is to discern signal from noise. They see not only a clear and present danger, but one that demands decisive action within a narrowing window.<\/p>\n

This may not satisfy a rigid reading of international law \u2013 particularly the traditional UN Charter framework that prohibits the use of force except in response to an \u201carmed attack\u201d under Article 51. But reality tends to outpace legal doctrine. And when the stakes involve nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime that calls for your annihilation, the law must either adapt or be ignored. That\u2019s the uncomfortable truth.<\/p>\n

As a legal realist, I see international law here not as a fixed barrier but as a flexible \u2013 albeit fragile \u2013framework, one that can inherently stretch within acceptable reason to accommodate this kind of operation if<\/em> it is narrowly tailored, proportionate, and clearly linked to an identifiable threat.\u00a0 That\u2019s a big if<\/em>, and one that demands accountability. This flexible accommodation in regard to a state\u2019s right to offensively defend itself has been accorded to states (or so it emerged from practice) from pre-1945 custom as legal scholars such as Samuel Pufendorf, Emer de Vattel, and Hugo Grotius inform.<\/a><\/p>\n

Israel may not have rewritten the rules of anticipatory self-defense \u2013 but it may have forced the international community to finally admit that the old rules no longer suffice in the nuclear age. Whether this ultimately proves a necessary evil or a dangerous precedent will depend on what follows.<\/p>\n

What began as a targeted campaign to degrade Iran\u2019s nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities has now expanded \u2013 subtly at first, and then overtly\u2014into a broader strategy to degrade the Iranian regime itself. Whether by design or drift, this is no longer just about preventing a bomb. It\u2019s about collapsing the state that might one day build it.<\/p>\n

Trump, while still hedging, has begun referring to Israeli air superiority using the collective \u201cwe\u201d \u2013 a rhetorical shift that signals creeping U.S. entanglement. He has even called for Iran\u2019s \u201cunconditional surrender,\u201d language with unmistakable echoes of regime change. America is involved, but not all-in. Netanyahu, however, seems eager to change that. He would gladly drag the United States into a full-scale regional war\u2014American taxpayer, reputation, and economic stability be damned.<\/p>\n

There is no plan for the day after<\/em>. None. And if Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan are any guide, then the outcome \u2013 like the timeline, cost, and unintended consequences \u2013 is unknowable. This is where strategic prudence gives way to dangerous hubris.<\/p>\n

Yes, Israel may have been justified in launching a preemptive\/anticipatory strike under the doctrine of self-defense. But the evolution of that strike into a broader campaign against the Iranian state raises serious legal and ethical questions. If the true aim is regime change, then the legal rationale begins to crumble. At that point, anticipatory self-defense risks becoming a parody of itself\u2014a fig leaf for a much more ambitious agenda: decapitating Iran\u2019s leadership, crippling its economy, and stoking unrest to provoke collapse from within.<\/p>\n

After revisiting the doctrine of self-defense under international law and interrogating the elasticity of “necessity” and “imminence” in an age of weapons-grade uranium, I will turn to the geopolitical chain reaction that could unfold if this crisis deepens\u2014intentionally or otherwise. History shows that wars often begin not with deliberate provocation, but through miscalculation, miscommunication, or sheer momentum. Conflicts rarely follow clean scripts. They muddle through, cascade, and metastasize in ways no one can fully predict, let alone control.<\/p>\n

Revisiting Self-Defense: Legal Doctrine Meets Strategic Reality<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"EXPLAINMuch of today\u2019s legal debate over anticipatory self-defense traces back to the 1837 Caroline<\/em> affair, when British forces attacked a U.S. vessel aiding Canadian rebels. They justified the strike as an act of self-defense. In response, U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster articulated a stringent standard: necessity must be \u201cinstant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.\u201d That test\u2014necessity, imminence, and proportionality \u2013 became the bedrock of customary international law.<\/p>\n

Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves the \u201cinherent right\u201d of self-defense, but refers only to an \u201carmed attack\u201d \u2013 not preemptive strikes. Yet crucially, it doesn\u2019t forbid anticipatory action either. Its silence is not a prohibition, but a space filled by state practice and evolving customary law.<\/p>\n

Literalists argue that anticipatory self-defense is illegitimate under the Charter. But this interpretation ignores a foundational truth: the right to self-defense predates and survives the Charter. No state can be expected to wait until it is irreversibly exposed to destruction before it is allowed to act \u2013 especially in the nuclear context.<\/p>\n

By a strict reading, Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran is difficult to justify under Caroline<\/em> or Article 51. Iran had not launched an attack. The threat\u2014though serious\u2014was not visibly \u201cinstant.\u201d Diplomacy was ongoing.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s the problem. The law assumes a linear model of conflict: threat \u2192 attack \u2192 response. Nuclear weapons break that sequence. Once a nuclear state becomes operational, the strategic landscape changes irreversibly. Deterrence kicks in. Retaliation becomes exponentially more dangerous. Options shrink. Allies hesitate.<\/p>\n

Article 51 doesn\u2019t mention anticipatory self-defense, but many scholars and a minority of states have recognized it under customary international law\u2014rooted in Caroline<\/em> and tentatively reaffirmed after 9\/11. Still, the prevailing interpretation, including by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has constrained its use. The ICJ\u2019s Nicaragua<\/em> judgment (1986) emphasized that self-defense is only triggered by an actual or imminent armed attack. In nuclear scenarios, that standard may be fatal. Because with nuclear weapons, the first strike is often the last.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not law. That\u2019s paralysis.<\/p>\n

The principle of anticipatory self-defense is embedded in the sovereign right of self-preservation. To deny it in the nuclear era is to demand suicidal restraint.<\/p>\n

International law often lags behind technological and strategic change. It did with cyberwarfare. It did with drones. And it is doing so again with nuclear latency. Iran has not detonated a weapon \u2013 but it has mastered every part of the nuclear fuel cycle short of final assembly. Strategically, that is nuclear latency: the capacity to build a weapon on short notice once the political decision is made.<\/p>\n

Legally, does latency constitute an \u201carmed attack\u201d? Strategically, must a state wait until it does?<\/p>\n

This is the core dilemma. If the legal threshold for action is set too high \u2013 if it requires perfect imminence or Security Council blessing\u2014it risks detaching law from security. The UN Charter\u2019s reactive framework assumes force is legal only after an attack. But nuclear weapons invert that logic. Once used, legal remedies become irrelevant. As Henry Kissinger warned during the Cold War, nuclear deterrence is not about responding to force\u2014it\u2019s about avoiding a situation in which response is futile.<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s June 13 strike forces us to confront that inversion. If international law prohibits action even after decades of Iranian enrichment, deception, missile testing, and open threats\u2014then it\u2019s not law. It\u2019s a suicide pact. This is not to say every preemptive strike is legal. Nor is \u201cexistential threat\u201d a license to bomb at will. But the binary distinction between legal and illegal force needs recalibration. Without that, we risk a perverse world in which only the reckless survive, while the rule-abiding perish waiting for permission. Even so, the legal objections to Israel\u2019s action remain serious\u2014and deserve full airing.<\/p>\n

The Case Against the Strike <\/strong><\/p>\n

First, Article 51 explicitly ties self-defense to an \u201carmed attack.\u201d The ICJ, in Nicaragua<\/em>, reinforced this interpretation. Iran\u2019s nuclear activities \u2013 while concerning \u2013 do not meet that threshold. No missiles were fired. No troops mobilized. No imminent military operation was underway. That matters.<\/p>\n

Second, the requirement of imminence remains central. Even if Iran\u2019s enrichment had progressed, critics argue it did not meet the Caroline<\/em> test of being \u201cinstant and overwhelming.\u201d A latent or potential threat, however serious, is not the same as an imminent one. Lowering that bar risks eroding the prohibition on the use of force itself.<\/p>\n

Third, the strike violated the UN Charter\u2019s core rule: no use of force without Security Council authorization or clear self-defense. The Council had not authorized force against Iran. Several members, including Russia and China, condemned the strike. IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi warned that the attack disrupted inspections and undermined transparency.<\/p>\n

Fourth, the normalization of such strikes is dangerous. If every state claims the right to preempt based on future capabilities, then the logic of non-aggression collapses. Why not strike North Korea? Pakistan? Or a state simply suspected of harboring intent? This slippery slope leads to instability, not deterrence.\u00a0 Indeed, by this metric is Israel, a known but not acknowledged nuclear power, at risk of being hoisted by its own petard?<\/p>\n

Fifth, critics point out that alternatives were not exhausted. Diplomacy, sanctions, intelligence-sharing, and covert operations all remained viable. Resorting to overt military force short-circuits these channels \u2013 and increases the risk of a broader war.<\/p>\n

These are valid and urgent criticisms. In a rational world, Israel wouldn\u2019t need to act unilaterally. But Israel does not live in a rational world. It lives in the Middle East. And when international enforcement mechanisms are paralyzed, states will act \u2013 lawfully if possible, lawlessly if necessary.<\/p>\n

There is precedent. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq\u2019s Osirak reactor\u2014a move condemned at the time but later viewed as prescient. In 2007, it struck Syria\u2019s covert Al-Kibar facility \u2013 again without UN approval, again with limited fallout. In both cases, the legal protests were loud. The strategic consequences, quiet.<\/p>\n

The real failure here is not Israel\u2019s. It is the international system\u2019s. The UN Security Council is frozen by vetoes. The IAEA has been stonewalled. Iran\u2019s missile development and nuclear violations have gone largely unchecked. The ICJ has no enforcement arm. Sanctions don\u2019t dismantle centrifuges. UN resolutions don\u2019t stop uranium enrichment.<\/p>\n

If the law is to be respected, it must offer more than procedure. It must offer protection. And if the international community wants to deter unilateral strikes, it must provide credible, enforceable alternatives. Otherwise, the law will be obeyed only when it is convenient \u2013 and ignored when it matters most.<\/p>\n

Sovereignty without security is a fiction; law without teeth is a ritual.<\/p>\n

The Politics Behind the Timing: Netanyahu, Iran, and the Legal Abyss<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

All that said, the timing and scale of Israel\u2019s operation raise serious concerns. Before listing them, I want to return to a fundamental question: Why now?<\/em><\/p>\n

Answering that may help contextualize what I see as a shift in Israel\u2019s objectives \u2013 from degrading Iran\u2019s nuclear and ballistic capabilities, to degrading the Iranian regime itself, and perhaps toward outright regime change. That last aim, if it is the aim, is pursued with no plan for the day after, no regard for historical precedent, and no assurance that the next regime won\u2019t be a military junta or an even more repressive theocracy.\u00a0 Afghanistan anyone?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the quiet collapse we\u2019re already witnessing \u2013 not in Tehran, but in the legal order meant to constrain such choices. The UN Security Council is paralyzed by great-power vetoes. The ICJ lacks enforcement power. The Rome Statute binds only the willing \u2013 and even then, rarely the powerful. What remains? Condemnations, draft resolutions, and press releases.<\/p>\n

If international law wants to retain relevance, it must evolve. That doesn\u2019t mean abandoning rules \u2013 it means adapting them to modern threats. Perhaps that means revising the definition of imminence. Perhaps it means articulating clearer norms around nuclear latency and hostile intent. But whatever the legal form, the law must recognize that existential threats don\u2019t always arrive with missile trails and mushroom clouds.<\/p>\n

The hard truth is this: when a legal system demands that a state risk its own annihilation to comply with doctrine, the system will be bypassed. First quietly. Then openly. Unless doctrine evolves \u2013 or gains real teeth \u2013 it won\u2019t deter aggression. It will encourage unilateralism. Not because states despise law, but because they refuse to die for it.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t just a legal argument; it\u2019s political reality. In the nuclear age, it is one we ignore at our peril.<\/p>\n

Still, the timing of Israel\u2019s strike raises troubling questions. Why now? Why not wait to see if U.S.\u2013Iran negotiations yielded a breakthrough? Why not give diplomacy \u2013 however fragile \u2013 the full 60-day window envisioned by previous backchannels?<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s June 13 strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure may not have been solely about politics, or elections, or distraction \u2013 but with Netanyahu, the imminence of Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and the urgency of his own political survival are not mutually exclusive. If anything, they are deeply intertwined.<\/p>\n

Where national security crises end, Netanyahu the political operator begins. For him, existential threats and political opportunity often occupy the same space. He seizes on emergencies \u2013 some real, some inflated \u2013 and justifies his actions with a volatile mix of fact and fiction. That\u2019s why it\u2019s critical to examine the stated aims of this military operation in context. As the strikes unfold, so do their likely unstated objectives \u2013 ones obscured by the chaos of war and the fog of global reaction.<\/p>\n

At face value, the operation was about denying Iran the capacity to fulfill its long-standing threats of genocide against Israel. And while the timing may have been influenced by domestic politics \u2013 as most state actions are \u2013 the core motivation appears strategic. You don\u2019t launch precision strikes hundreds of miles into hostile airspace unless you believe the stakes are existential.<\/p>\n

But we cannot separate this operation from the political calculations behind it. Netanyahu\u2019s motivations are not purely defensive. He is under mounting international pressure over the war in Gaza, faces growing domestic unrest, and remains entangled in corruption trials. A high-stakes military confrontation with Iran serves multiple purposes: it unifies the home front, dominates headlines, and sidelines political negotiations that threaten his hardline agenda.<\/p>\n

Part of this is ideological. Netanyahu fundamentally distrusts Iran, the international community, and any diplomatic compromise that permits Tehran even limited uranium enrichment. But there\u2019s also a more cynical logic\u2014one rooted in the political utility of perpetual crisis. His career has been built on security emergencies, real or manufactured. War reshuffles media narratives. It rallies nationalist sentiment. It defers accountability.<\/p>\n

The strike may also have been calibrated to sabotage diplomacy on multiple fronts. It disrupted U.S.\u2013Iran nuclear talks days before a possible breakthrough. It undermined the French\u2013Saudi push to revive a two-state solution \u2013 an outcome Netanyahu has long resisted, preferring incremental de facto annexation over a negotiated settlement. The timing wasn\u2019t accidental.<\/p>\n

Strategically, the moment looked opportune. Iran is under internal strain. Its economy is battered. Its population is disillusioned. Its military, though formidable, is overstretched and reliant on proxies that have taken heavy losses in Syria, Iraq, and Gaza. From an Israeli perspective, this may have looked like the perfect window: Iran weakened at home, isolated abroad, and diplomatically vulnerable.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the shadow of regime change. By targeting not just nuclear assets but senior military and intelligence officials \u2013 and reportedly even considering strikes on Supreme Leader Khamenei \u2013 Israel signaled that this was more than a nonproliferation campaign. It was a decapitation strategy. The logic? Break Iran\u2019s strategic program and destabilize the regime at the same time.<\/p>\n

The United States, for now, is playing a reactive role\u2014intercepting retaliatory strikes but refraining from direct involvement. Trump, always the transactional tactician, may see advantage in letting Israel \u201csoften\u201d Iran before re-entering negotiations. A weakened, humiliated Iran might be more likely to accept terms it previously rejected. No military action is ever purely legal or purely strategic\u2014it is always political.<\/p>\n

Netanyahu is governing from a place of weakness. His coalition is fraying. His domestic opposition is resurgent. His government faces legal challenges and moral condemnation over Gaza. Some argue the June 13 strike was a political gambit \u2013 designed to pivot the national conversation, reassert deterrence, and preempt a diplomatic deal that would tie his hands on settlements and normalization. There is circumstantial evidence for this. The strike occurred just as U.S. diplomacy with Iran and the Saudis was gaining traction. If Netanyahu wanted to act before that window closed, the timing makes perfect sense. But<\/em> that doesn\u2019t mean the threat wasn\u2019t real.<\/p>\n

States rarely act from a single motive. A government can act out of both fear and ambition, both genuine threat perception and cynical political calculus. The key legal question is not whether Netanyahu had mixed motives \u2013 but whether the threat was credible, and whether the response was proportionate.<\/p>\n

Netanyahu believes he is scattering the storm before it gathers into a mushroom cloud. Maybe so. But he also acted unilaterally, precipitously, and without full U.S. approval. And to achieve his strategic goals, Israel will likely require American offensive support \u2013 risking escalation into a broader war that neither country is prepared to control.<\/p>\n

That would be disastrous.<\/p>\n

Into the Valley of the<\/em> Unknown Unknowns<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Here are just some of the concerns that lead me to believe there are far too many unknown unknowns for Israel \u2013 or the United States \u2013 to escalate what could have remained a limited operation, into a full-scale war. A war that will, inevitably, engulf the region and carry devastating global economic and security consequences.<\/p>\n

This could have been different. The original mission \u2013 however controversial \u2013 might have been leveraged into a viable agreement of the sort Trump once pursued. It wasn\u2019t perfect, but it was something to build on. And as anyone in diplomacy knows, behavior is easier to change than beliefs.<\/p>\n

Instead, we appear to be heading off a cliff.<\/p>\n

First, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding. Reports suggest that Israel may be targeting not only nuclear infrastructure, but political leadership. A decapitation strike aimed at regime change is an entirely different legal and strategic proposition\u2014one with exponentially greater risks.<\/p>\n

Second, dragging the United States into a war of Israel\u2019s making is perilous. While Washington has so far limited its role to intercepting Iranian retaliation, any escalation requiring U.S. offensive support risks a full-blown regional war. That would be catastrophic \u2013 not only for the region, but for the global order.<\/p>\n

Third, Iran is unlikely to take this lying down. Far from deterring it, the strike may accelerate its drive toward nuclear weaponization. The strategic paradox is chilling: if Iran already possessed a deliverable nuclear warhead, Israel likely would not have attacked. The lesson Tehran may now draw is clear \u2013build the bomb, or be bombed.<\/p>\n

Fourth, regime change \u2013 even if achieved \u2013 offers no guarantees. Iran is not Iraq. It is four times larger, more internally complex, and fiercely nationalistic. A post-theocracy Iran might not be liberal or pro-Western. It could just as easily be a military junta\u2014or something worse.<\/p>\n

Fifth, regional destabilization is all but certain. Oil markets are jittery. Energy prices are rising. Inflationary pressures could ripple across global economies. The long-term effects will not be confined to the Middle East. They will reach every country that depends on energy markets or global trade stability\u2014which is to say, all of them.<\/p>\n

Finally, there\u2019s the question of perception. The Iranian people \u2013 many of whom loathe their own regime \u2013 are watching Gaza burn under Israeli bombs. They may resent the ayatollahs, but Netanyahu\u2019s brutal campaign has alienated countless would-be allies. If Israel hoped to foment internal dissent or catalyze regime collapse, this was not the way to do it.<\/p>\n

Legal Realism, Not Legal Nihilism \/ \u00a0Doctrine, Not Dogma<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not defending Netanyahu\u2019s politics. I\u2019m not advocating for war. And I\u2019m not calling for anticipatory self-defense to become an open-ended doctrine. What I am calling for is a sober reckoning with the limits of international law when it collides with the imperatives of national survival.<\/p>\n

The right to self-defense is not a suicide pact. But neither is it a blank check. It must be governed by necessity, proportionality, and good faith\u2014not manipulated for domestic gain or regional domination.<\/p>\n

Yet if international law cannot evolve to meet the realities of nuclear latency and ambiguous threats, it will be ignored\u2014not because states despise law, but because the law no longer speaks to the threats they face.<\/p>\n

The world needs legal norms that deter aggression \u2013 but also frameworks that recognize existential risks in the nuclear age do not come with countdown clocks. Anticipatory self-defense is not a license to destroy. The threat must be real. The response must be proportionate. The intelligence must be credible. The alternatives must be exhausted.<\/p>\n

Legal realism is not legal nihilism. But neither should doctrine become dogma.<\/p>\n

International law must evolve \u2013 not to weaken it, but to preserve it. Imminence must be redefined. Norms around nuclear latency, hostile intent, and strategic ambiguity must be clarified. Because in the nuclear age, existential threats don\u2019t come with warning shots. They come with timelines too opaque to wait for certainty.<\/p>\n

The hard truth is this: when a legal system requires that a state risk annihilation to comply with outdated norms, the system will be bypassed. First quietly, then openly. Israel\u2019s June 13 strike may be legally dubious. But it is strategically comprehensible. And it exposes a far deeper problem: a legal order incapable of grappling with 21st-century threats.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not just Israel\u2019s problem.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s everyone\u2019s.<\/p>\n

P.S.\u00a0 Click here<\/a> to read Part I.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Don't<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Resuming and Recontextualizing The legal and strategic implications of Israel\u2019s aerial offensive inside Iran \u2013 unprecedented in both scope and timing \u2013 are difficult to overstate. This was not retaliation. There was no missile barrage, no chemical warhead in the sky, no mass-casualty provocation. Ramadan had just ended. The region was diplomatically active, not ablaze. … Continue reading “THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,21],"tags":[36,7],"class_list":["post-5665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-events","category-international-criminal-law","tag-current-events","tag-international-criminal-law"],"yoast_head":"\nTHE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival - Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In-depth analysis of Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran, examining the legal and strategic complexities of anticipatory self-defense, the evolving norms of international law, and the shifting dynamics in the nuclear age. What\u2019s at stake for global security, and how the actions of one nation could reshape the rules of engagement in a world where existential threats don\u2019t wait for certainty.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival - Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In-depth analysis of Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran, examining the legal and strategic complexities of anticipatory self-defense, the evolving norms of international law, and the shifting dynamics in the nuclear age. What\u2019s at stake for global security, and how the actions of one nation could reshape the rules of engagement in a world where existential threats don\u2019t wait for certainty.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-18T19:05:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-18T19:05:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\/maxresdefault.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Michael G. Karnavas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/mgkarnavas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mgkarnavas\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Michael G. Karnavas\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Michael G. Karnavas\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\"},\"headline\":\"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-18T19:05:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-18T19:05:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4202,\"commentCount\":2,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i.ytimg.com\\\/vi\\\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\\\/maxresdefault.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Current Events\",\"International Criminal Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Current Events\",\"International Criminal Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival - Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events - michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i.ytimg.com\\\/vi\\\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\\\/maxresdefault.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-18T19:05:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-18T19:05:34+00:00\",\"description\":\"In-depth analysis of Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran, examining the legal and strategic complexities of anticipatory self-defense, the evolving norms of international law, and the shifting dynamics in the nuclear age. What\u2019s at stake for global security, and how the actions of one nation could reshape the rules of engagement in a world where existential threats don\u2019t wait for certainty.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i.ytimg.com\\\/vi\\\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\\\/maxresdefault.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i.ytimg.com\\\/vi\\\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\\\/maxresdefault.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/18\\\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Michael G. Karnavas Blog\",\"description\":\"International Criminal Law Blog\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79\",\"name\":\"Michael G. Karnavas\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\",\"width\":365,\"height\":365,\"caption\":\"Michael G. Karnavas\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1\"},\"description\":\"Michael G. Karnavas is an American trained lawyer. He is licensed in Alaska and Massachusetts and is qualified to appear before the various International tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). Residing and practicing primarily in The Hague, he is recognized as an expert in international criminal defence, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate advocacy.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/michael-g-karnavas-97494a75\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/https:\\\/\\\/twitter.com\\\/mgkarnavas\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/michaelgkarnavas.net\\\/blog\\\/author\\\/michael-g-karnavas\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival - Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","description":"In-depth analysis of Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran, examining the legal and strategic complexities of anticipatory self-defense, the evolving norms of international law, and the shifting dynamics in the nuclear age. What\u2019s at stake for global security, and how the actions of one nation could reshape the rules of engagement in a world where existential threats don\u2019t wait for certainty.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival - Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","og_description":"In-depth analysis of Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran, examining the legal and strategic complexities of anticipatory self-defense, the evolving norms of international law, and the shifting dynamics in the nuclear age. What\u2019s at stake for global security, and how the actions of one nation could reshape the rules of engagement in a world where existential threats don\u2019t wait for certainty.","og_url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/","og_site_name":"michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","article_published_time":"2025-06-18T19:05:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-18T19:05:34+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\/maxresdefault.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Michael G. Karnavas","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/mgkarnavas","twitter_site":"@mgkarnavas","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Michael G. Karnavas","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/"},"author":{"name":"Michael G. Karnavas","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79"},"headline":"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events","datePublished":"2025-06-18T19:05:13+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-18T19:05:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/"},"wordCount":4202,"commentCount":2,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\/maxresdefault.jpg","keywords":["Current Events","International Criminal Law"],"articleSection":["Current Events","International Criminal Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/","url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/","name":"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival - Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events - michaelgkarnavas.net\/Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\/maxresdefault.jpg","datePublished":"2025-06-18T19:05:13+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-18T19:05:34+00:00","description":"In-depth analysis of Israel\u2019s June 13 strike on Iran, examining the legal and strategic complexities of anticipatory self-defense, the evolving norms of international law, and the shifting dynamics in the nuclear age. What\u2019s at stake for global security, and how the actions of one nation could reshape the rules of engagement in a world where existential threats don\u2019t wait for certainty.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\/maxresdefault.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/cVYjbJ6Pjy4\/maxresdefault.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/2025\/06\/18\/israeli-strike-on-iran-part-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part II: Sovereignty, Paralysis, the Future of International Law & the Confluence of Unpredictable Events"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/","name":"Michael G. Karnavas Blog","description":"International Criminal Law Blog","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d03dcdb5c7e0e85117fb75cfb7b98c79","name":"Michael G. Karnavas","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1","width":365,"height":365,"caption":"Michael G. Karnavas"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MGKarnavasCt.jpg?fit=365%2C365&ssl=1"},"description":"Michael G. Karnavas is an American trained lawyer. He is licensed in Alaska and Massachusetts and is qualified to appear before the various International tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). Residing and practicing primarily in The Hague, he is recognized as an expert in international criminal defence, including pre-trial, trial, and appellate advocacy.","sameAs":["http:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/michael-g-karnavas-97494a75\/","https:\/\/x.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/mgkarnavas"],"url":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/author\/michael-g-karnavas\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5665","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5665"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5665\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5676,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5665\/revisions\/5676"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelgkarnavas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}