I saw this from "The Gaurdian" news website. Just a little confusion on my part. Maybe a silly question on my part. I guess he can because he just did huh?
-
Is the question whether Iran's refusal gives him some power he didn't have prior? Obviously he can say the words.IllusiveBrian– IllusiveBrian2025-06-17 21:58:50 +00:00Commented Jun 17 at 21:58
-
2He just did. Do you mean maybe something else?NoDataDumpNoContribution– NoDataDumpNoContribution2025-06-17 22:07:30 +00:00Commented Jun 17 at 22:07
-
2While the country Iran might not be able to surrender to the country USA, Ali Khamenei and the government might surrender their role as leaders of the country to someone unspecified.ccprog– ccprog2025-06-17 22:07:51 +00:00Commented Jun 17 at 22:07
-
2In a legal sense Trump can not demand Iran surrender. He does not speak for the warring parties. He is making that demand in a diplomatic sense. It is standard coercive diplomacy, where implied threats are used to achieve policy goals without engaging in actual conflict.Schmerel– Schmerel2025-06-17 22:52:45 +00:00Commented Jun 17 at 22:52
-
5I can demand unconditional surrender, why not Trump? Anyone can demand anything they like. The only question is whether that demand carries any weight. Mine, not much, Trump's, perhaps a little bit more.user111403– user1114032025-06-18 06:26:40 +00:00Commented Jun 18 at 6:26
|
Show 4 more comments
2 Answers
What is a "demand" in this context?
Sovereign states A and B are at war. The head of government of sovereign state C has an opinion how that war should end, and says so publicly. That's entirely normal, especially if C thinks that just one of A or B is at fault.
It would also be normal, and sometimes even praiseworthy, if a third country "offers their good offices" to facilitate negotiations between A and B. That's not really the case here, because it works best if C has working diplomatic relations with both A and B ...
If the government of C thinks that A is acting in legitimate self-selfense, then under international law C could join A in collective self-defense. Who in C gets to make that call is a question of the domestic law in C. In the United States, the last question is very unclear by law or precedent.
Frame challenge: Twitter posts, even by POTUS, are not binding in international law.
Much like Medvedev's posts are embarrassing but not really a case of international concern.
If USA wasn't the superpower, its ambassador could be summoned over such posts, though.
-
2Plot twist, binding international law doesn't exist. There are patchworks of treaties and conventions, but international law on its best day is more like guidelines. Uncover the rabbit hole, and you find those that respect "Might makes Right" would find Trumps post more binding than international law.David S– David S2025-06-18 21:21:45 +00:00Commented Jun 18 at 21:21