Denial – The New Reason For Going To War

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

There used to be only three legal reasons for a country to go to war.

The oldest and most incontrovertible is self-defence. If one country invades another’s territory, the victim has a fundamental right, enshrined in international law, that allows it to protect and defend itself. Associated with this core entitlement is the right to come to the aid of an ally, as in the NATO Article 5 clause.

The second reason is if the United Nations agrees to a Security Council Resolution, as in the case of the Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991.

The third reason, which stems from the tragedies in Bosnia and Rwanda, was agreed at the UN’s 2005 World Summit; to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Since then, another reason has emerged – Denial. We have seen it with Putin’s so called special military operation to deny Ukraine joining NATO and we have now seen it with Trump’s war in the Gulf to deny Iran from developing its nuclear ambitions. In response, Iran has been denying access through the Strait of Hormuz and this in turn has led to a US blockade to deny Iran’s oil trade with Asia.

Denial has always been a part of the operational framework of war and “fixing the enemy”. By denying them the opportunity to achieve their goals, the aim is to throw adversaries off balance before defeating them on the battlefield. On land, this phase is usually masterminded by the senior sapper with minefields, bridge demolitions and an intricate obstacle plan. But in the modern sense, it is more in the hands of the airmen to attack infrastructure with bombs, missiles and drones.

The problem with this half-way house is that Denial in itself is like Deterrence, it doesn’t defeat the enemy. However, the advantage is that it provides political leaders with an opportunity to deny the country is At War and that the rest of the World is suffering the consequences.

Not The Third Gulf War

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

This week, I have seen several media outlets and analysts tracing the current conflict in the Gulf to the war to liberate Kuwait. Their logic is that the 21st century Middle East wars stem from the decision by the international community (President George Bush) not to overthrow Saddam Hussein after defeating his army in 1991.

I have a different perspective based on the premise that 1979 was the beginning of the modern era. That year began with the Iranian Revolution and continued with horrific massacres by the PLO in Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (as well as terrorist attacks in Rhodesia, Britain, Norway, Columbia, USA, Spain, Ireland (Mountbatten) and Netherlands). At the end of the year the siege of the Grand Mosque of Mecca resulted in 244 deaths and spawned Al Qu’aida. To cap it all, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on 24 December.

For me, the First Gulf War began the following year when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. In the same way that the US Administration supported the Taliban when it attacked Soviet troops, Washington also backed Saddam with satellite and radar intelligence, economic loans, artillery and vehicles. However, this did not result in victory and over a million people died in this conventional war, which lasted nearly eight years. Strangely, both Israel and the USA supported Iran, with the secret Iran-Contra arms sales becoming a national scandal in 1987.

The British Army studied this First Gulf War as it happened and I remember every year, there was a question in the Staff College Exam about its implications. A friend who was translating for the United Nations stayed in Baghdad and his notes remind me of one of the most relevant lessons for 2026: Iraq attempted to expand the scope of the war to reduce its duration, but Iran was happy to plan for the long haul…