• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    Of course by international law they shouldn’t be doing that.

    International law is a product of, and supported by, nation states. If the previously ruling government has fallen, it effectively doesn’t have a nation that respects the binding of international law. When a new government forms, that government will most likely take up the mantle of support for international law in exchange for international recognition. Right now on the ground its a bit of a free-for-all, I’d imagine.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      That’s a good point, and I think that was kind of valid in Iran in 1981 too? USA has held a grudge against Iran for more than 40 years for that!

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        20 days ago

        The USA grudge against Iran wasn’t because of the storming of the embassy. It was holding Americans diplomatic staff hostage for 444 days and threatening to “put them on trial” if Iran didn’t get what it wanted from the USA.

        I haven’t heard any reports of Syrians holding Iranian diplomatic staff hostages yet.