If this is a serious question as you say, it’s really not complicated at all.
Dismantle the IRGC and hand over power to someone in the interim (if they are picking it would probably be Amir Hatami, commander of Artesh, the non-IRGC army of Iran), who can negotiate the terms by which power would be handed over to a civilian government in time for an election.
The approval of Saudi Arabia is a strike against the war, not for it.
And how would Mr. Hatami proceed, who would he negotiate the terms to hand power over to a civilian government with? What could he agree to with whom? What mandate would he have?
Who has claimed that Iran is not a threat to its neighbours and isn’t doing harm? It still doesn’t justify going to war, hence why no-one has even tried to make the case for this under international law. The best Rubio could come up with, was that with Israel attacking, it was just a matter of time before US assets would come under threat. The kind of logic that could be used to defend any aggression regardless of context.
There’s a reason why neither the US or Israel are hitting Artesh beyond targeting AA sites, warplanes, or ships (used to close the straits); the command structure is for the most part left alone so that they can remain intact for negotiations.
Maybe I misunderstand the question? The countries Iran is at war with, obviously?
He could agree to no longer execute anyone who talks about replacing the IRGC so that Iranians can come out in the open to discuss what they want to do with their country?
The criticism ‘but there’s no one in Iran ready to replace the IRGC’ is true but that’s because if someone in Iran was ready and able to replace the IRGC, the IRGC would execute them. That’s why the Reza Pahlavi critique - that he hasn’t been in the country in years - is so silly. Yes, he hasn’t been there in years, because he’s an enemy of the regime and they’d execute him. Exactly.
He wouldn’t have a mandate, which is why he shouldn’t take over the country in the long term.
Did international law prevent Iran from spending decades actively attacking its neighbors in the middle east through proxies?
If not, what use is it?
If international law doesn’t recognize that Iran was already attacking Israel, then it is deeply flawed to the point of worthlessness. And if it does, then obviously Iran is the aggressor here.
A watchdog group is getting many complaints that US commanders are telling their people the purpose of the war is to hasten the End of Days.
To try to keep us from descending into a Hobbesian world of might makes right logic. And it’s worked pretty well since the second world war – yes, there have been some clusterfucks, like Iraq, but generally most of the world most of the time has been peaceful and countless conflicts have been resolved in whole or large part through international negotiation, criminal courts and sanctions.
But here we are: just in time for America’s 250th anniversary, we enter a new world of annexation and aggression. The results are in for “the american experiment”.
Trump is asked if Israel forced him into the conflict, he respond that if anything he forced Israel into the conflict.
You’re citing Trump’s words? Might as well cite a monkey and a typewriter.
Except that it was not working, because as mentioned, Iran was actively attacking their neighbors for decades through proxy groups.
I repeat:
Also, I find this very telling:
Iraq is the “clusterfuck” you think of when you think of international law failing? Iraq? That’s your most egregious example of “might makes right” in recent years? Iraq?
Now Iran is actively attacking its neighbors directly because of this war launched with no mission and no plan! Who needs proxies?
And a bonus: scores of dead schoolchildren thanks to American munitions. Thanks, warriors!
Just out of curiosity, if you don’t mind: what would the most egregious example be that comes to your mind? I can think of several, but am not sure how I would rank them.
Since Trump has stated that “it’s too late for negotiations” apparently they can’t. Of course this has to be considered in light of the fact that what Trump says varies from one day to another and even one sentence to another.
It was working in terms of the nuclear deal before that got blown up for no reason, and current negotiations. No-one is defending Iran here, just pointing out that the justification for war is nowhere near being met.
No, it was just an example that came to mind. But in case this is where you’re going with this: yes I am aware that it’s debatable whether it was legal under international law, that’s why I gave it as an example of a failure of international law.
Anyway, I’m too old to chase squirrels, are we going to talk about the supposed justification for these attacks, and whether the US is going to attempt to install a government that won’t support Hizbullah et al?
In Soviet Russia, conflict forces Israel into YOU!
I can easily come up with 10 examples that are far more egregious examples of the failure of international law than a case where the US built a coalition through international diplomacy and toppled a dictator but fumbled the aftermath badly but will not list them here (well I did but then I saw Aspenglow was typing 
so I thought better of it)
Sure:
Iran was building up three existential threats to Israel. Their proxy networks, their ballistic missile program, and their nuclear program. Iran was also already using one of those, the proxy network, to actively attack its neighbors, not just Israel.
Moderating:
Be mindful of this specific topic. Conversation ranging around the effectiveness of international law on past conflicts is understandable, but don’t let it become a hijack to the main discussion about the USA and Israeli bombings of Iran.
The above comment has no place in this discussion. Keep non sequiturs to the Pit. It’s hard enough to keep people on topic in a thread like this without such contributions.
I don’t know how Iranian parents feel, but if a world government was responsible for bombing my daughter’s school and blowing her body to smithereens, I’d definitely make that government and its leadership my sworn enemy and do whatever I could to destroy it, even going so far as to form or join an organization that could possibly inflict violence and death in retaliation.