Iran’s Proxy Wars and the Women the Regime Tries to Silence

Spare me the sanctimonious platitudes about “illegal war.”

The Iranian regime has been waging conflict through Iran’s proxy wars for decades. Hezbollah. Hamas. The Houthis. Rockets, militias, terror groups, and convenient deniability.

Yet the moment Iran itself becomes the target of military action, the same people who ignored all of that suddenly rediscover their devotion to international law.

You hear it from commentators, activists, and a few politicians here in Australia. The language is dramatic and morally satisfying. Unfortunately it ignores a rather large piece of history.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen launch rockets, attack shipping, and target civilians while Tehran maintains the convenient fiction that it is not directly involved. In particular, let us not forget the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023.

If a government funds, arms, and directs organisations that carry out repeated attacks, it is difficult to argue it is not already engaged in conflict. It has simply chosen a method that allows deniability.

Closer to home, Australia has had its own reminder of how the regime operates. Our government expelled the Iranian ambassador after he was linked to orchestrating antisemitic attacks here. That is not diplomacy. That is intimidation.

Yet when the regime faces retaliation, the conversation suddenly becomes a lecture about “international law.”

This might carry more weight if the same standards were applied consistently. Iran ignores international law whenever it suits. So do Russia and China. The United Nations, supposedly the referee of this system, often looks less like a guardian of global order and more like a high school debating society issuing sternly worded statements.

And well known barrister Geoffrey Robertson says the war may be legal. In an article in the Telegraph he writes, “Countries are only entitled to invade in self defence. This is the only lawful justification for invasion, unless the ill-defined “right of humanitarian intervention” permits it in order to stop a state from massacring its own people…. it remains fact that just two weeks before the invasion, under the security blanket imposed by an internet ban, the state of Iran murdered many thousands (at least 15,000 and possibly upward of 35,000) of its own peacefully protesting citizens.” (Sorry, paywall)

None of that means civilian casualties are acceptable. They never are.

Reports that a girls’ school was bombed in Iran are tragic. War always punishes people who had no say in the decisions that caused it.

But it is also impossible to talk about Iran without acknowledging the nature of the regime itself. I wrote an article about that a couple of weeks ago. “When people protest today, they are not simply opposing a president who can be voted out. They are pushing against a structure that has concentrated ultimate authority in one office for nearly half a century.”

This is a government that polices clothing, suppresses dissent, and treats women as second class citizens under religious law.

The death of Mahsa Amini after being detained by morality police for allegedly wearing her hijab incorrectly sparked protests across Iran and among the Iranian diaspora around the world. The images of those protests told us something important.

Many Iranians despise the regime that rules them.

That brings us to something happening quietly here in Australia right now.

The Iranian women’s soccer team is currently visiting. The players are accompanied by regime officials and closely monitored because authorities fear they may defect.

In other words, athletes representing their country are effectively being guarded like prisoners. Reports from the Women’s Asian Cup here in Australia say the Iranian players were under tight supervision and refused to sing the national anthem in their opening match, which many observers saw as a silent protest against the regime in solidarity with protesters back home.

That takes courage.

While these women risk punishment for the smallest act of dissent, our own political debate seems strangely detached from their reality.

Some members of the Teals and Greens have been quick to condemn an “illegal war.” What we hear far less about is the regime that imprisons its athletes, suppresses its citizens, and punishes women for defying religious rules.

Years ago Julia Gillard delivered a famous speech condemning misogyny.

It was applauded around the world.

Watching the current debate, you could be forgiven for wondering whether outrage about women’s rights only applies when the offenders are Western men.

The women risking their safety inside Iran do not have the luxury of political theatre. They are challenging a system that controls how they dress, where they go, and what they are allowed to say.

When Iranian athletes refuse to sing their own national anthem, they are making a statement far braver than anything delivered at a parliamentary microphone.

Perhaps that deserves a little more attention than another lecture about international law.

Especially from people who claim to care about women.