TEHRAN -- The U.S. and its major ally Britain eventually started their military campaign against Iraq after one year of propaganda and psychological warfare. In fact, there is only one reason for the U.S.- British war on Iraq and that is oppression and bullying.

The developments that led to the war against Iraq could have set precedents which would have prevented the conflict, but were unfortunately largely overlooked by the world media due to the intense news coverage of the crisis.

A brief look at the most significant points of the Iraq crisis, particularly from the standpoint of international law, can definitely make up for the absence of critical analysis of the situation. The very first point is that Washington used the pretext of disarming the Baghdad regime to mobilize a large number of troops in the Middle East. The U.S. claims that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that could threaten international security. The question that comes to mind is: Who appointed the U.S. to be the prosecutor of the world with the authority to issue an indictment, pronounce a verdict, and execute punishment, even if Washington is right in its claims?! The preamble of the UN Charter reads: "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, ... establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations." According to Article 1 of the charter, one of the purposes of the United Nations is "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."

Also, Articles 39 to 51 of the charter name the UN Security Council as the only organization authorized to adopt measures in response to "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" either through military means (Article 42) or through measures that do not involve the use of armed force (Article 41). Therefore, it is not at all clear how the U.S. was authorized to replace the UN and the Security Council, and how Washington can defy the UN Charter to accuse other countries, to decide their fate, and to implement punishment?!