Challenging views on international law - your letters, plus a flashback to the 1981 People’s March through Wolverhampton

War is morally right despite law

In his response regarding the events in Iran, Alan Harrison offers a robust defence of international law. My original correspondence explicitly stated that, under international law, the war on Iran is unequivocally illegal. My support for military action against Iran is not rooted in any adherence to international legal standards or jurisprudence.

Indeed, I question the validity of the entire concept of an international, legally binding, and enforceable framework. Nation-states tend not to regard this concept above their self-interest, and the institutions designed to enforce it are often considered laughable, ineffective, and, sadly, emblematic of a particular worldview.

I justify the regime change in Iran not through legal arguments but through a straightforward moral perspective, as I perceive it. The suppression of freedoms for Iranian citizens, the orchestration and execution of acts of terrorism, and the mass murder of their own populace render the Iranian cleric-led regime uncivilised, incompatible with the moral values I uphold—regardless of what any well-educated lawyer might suggest.

Martin Bristow, Wolverhampton

​Israel bringing conflict to region

There is a thorn in the Middle East. The terrorist state of Israel. It's brought semi permanent war to the region for decades. It has attacked nearly every country in the region. Now it has attacked Iran a country of 100 million. It hasn't finished yet. It also has a big brother, the USA, who protects it, with weapons, finance and takes part in attacks. Now they promise more of the same. Destabilised countries, civil wars, famine, refugees and poverty.

Francis Biard, Stafford

Cyprus must protect itself

Carol Owens (letters, March 9)  blames Keir Starmer (UK Prime Minister) because British citizens in Cyprus (president: Nikos Christodoulides, an independent state since 1960) "have no protection from being bombed". Responsibility for the protection of British citizens in Cyprus, whether permanent residents or visitors, clearly lies with Dr Christodoulides and his government. The only involvement of Starmer or any of his predecessors is the retention by the UK of the "sovereign bases", the presence of which in Cyprus risks what is euphemistically called "collateral damage" to Cypriots in the event of those bases becoming targets in a war in which their country has no part. Small wonder that Cypriots are now trying to end this anachronism.

Alan Harrison, Bloxwich

Have an opinion? Want to be heard? We want to hear your voice!

Write to Readers' letters at [email protected]

Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and address and will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.

Do you have any pictures from the past you would like to share with us? 

Do need help recognising an old street, old faces? If so, send them to [email protected] including your name, where you are from, and as much information as you can about the photo(s) and we will publish as many as we can online and in print.