Crisis of Global Order
The contemporary international landscape is witnessing a profound destabilization of the norms that have governed state behavior for nearly eighty years. In his Monday remarks on Boom FM, lawyer and legal analyst Jomo Thomas offered a devastating critique of this erosion, framing the escalating conflict involving Iran as a pivotal moment in the struggle between the Global North’s hegemonic interests and the sovereign rights of the Global South. Thomas’s analysis transcends the political commentary; it serves as a clinical autopsy of the post-WWII legal order, which he argues is being systematically dismantled by the United States and Israel.
The core premise of Thomas’s argument is that the military actions taken against the Iranian state represent a definitive, terminal breach of the tenets established to prevent global anarchy. He posits that the West has abandoned the pretense of a rules-based order, reverting instead to a unilateralism that threatens the foundational security of all developing nations. This shift marks the transition from a world governed by treaties to one governed by the raw exercise of power, leading to specific, egregious violations of international law.
Erosion of the UN Framework
The United Nations was strategically engineered in the wake of the Second World War to provide a collective security framework that would protect the weak from the whims of the strong. Its foundational principles—sovereignty, non-interference, and the prohibition of aggression—were intended to be jus cogens, or peremptory norms that no state could legally bypass. However, Thomas says that these frameworks are currently facing a terminal crisis as powerful actors treat the UN Security Council not as a legal authority, but as a hurdle to be ignored when it conflicts with strategic goals.
Thomas identifies a stark tension between these modern legal tenets and the archaic “might makes right” philosophy famously articulated by the historian Thucydides (referenced by Thomas as “Pusides”). This ancient realist perspective—that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must—has replaced the legal commitment to the inviolability of borders. Thomas coined the recent Saturday morning attacks on Iran as “criminal aggression,” a legal category of the highest order that signifies a total abandonment of international cooperation in favor of predatory violence.
The impact of this aggression is the functional erasure of sovereignty for states deemed adversaries by the West. By treating international law as a tool of convenience rather than a binding mandate, the United States and its allies have showed that no border is truly inviolable and no government is truly sovereign. This collapse of the global legal theory has directly paved the way for a new era of tactical, unmasked aggression.
Doctrine of Regime Change
The shift in Western foreign policy has moved beyond the “soft power” or proxy-driven interventions of the past toward an overt doctrine of military-led regime change. Thomas highlights that this is no longer a clandestine operation but a flagrant tactical shift where the assassination of foreign leaders is presented as a “righteous” instrument of statecraft. This doctrine represents a total rejection of the diplomatic process, replacing the negotiating table with the precision-guided missile.
Thomas specifically addresses the gravity of the Saturday morning strikes, asserting that the operation was a decapitation strike intended to end the current Iranian government. According to Thomas’s account of the event, the attack did not merely target military hardware but successfully claimed the lives of the nation’s highest leadership and their kin. Under a banner of “righteous” intervention, the human cost included:
Ali Khamenei (The Iranian Leader)
His daughter
His granddaughter
His stepson
The timing of this strike underscores what Thomas views as a calculated betrayal of the diplomatic track. Only twenty-four hours prior, on Friday, the Omani mediator and the Iranian representative had reported “wonderful” negotiations and “positive progress” regarding nuclear disarmament. The subsequent Saturday strike reveals a geopolitical cognitive dissonance where diplomacy is used as a smokescreen for imminent military execution. This betrayal has forced a regional reckoning, exposing the complicity and diplomatic failures of leadership within the Caribbean.
Critique of Caribbean Diplomatic Responses
For a legal analyst like Thomas, regional solidarity is the primary defense for small states against imperial overreach. He views the recent responses from Caribbean heads of state not only as a diplomatic disagreement but a betrayal of local intelligence and a subservient echo of Western propaganda. Thomas takes particular aim at the characterization of Iran as the sole aggressor in a vacuum.
Analyzing the statements made by Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and President Irfaan Ali of Guyana, Thomas critiques their condemnation of Iran’s “unprovoked” attacks on neighbors like Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. Thomas argues that this narrative is legally and geographically fraudulent. He maintains that an Iranian response cannot be termed “unprovoked” when the missiles are targeting the very installations used to launch attacks against Iran. The geographic reality of the region, Thomas notes, is defined by an overwhelming U.S. military footprint.
Bahrain: Host to the U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet, the most massive naval presence outside of American territorial waters.
Qatar: Home to the Doha installations where high-ranking U.S. military officials coordinate regional operations.
UAE and Kuwait: Strategic hubs for powerful U.S. military installations and personnel.
Thomas stated that for Caribbean leaders to ignore these facts is an insult to the intelligence of their constituents. He posits that the current conflict cannot be divorced from the long-standing Western commitment to dismantling the Iranian state, a project with deep and bloody historical roots.
From 1953 Coup to 1979 Revolution
To understand the current crisis of global order, Thomas insists on a rigorous mapping of history, specifically the decades of Western intervention intended to suppress Iranian self-determination. The current hostility is not a reaction to modern events but the continuation of a policy that views any independent Iranian development as a threat to Western hegemony.
Thomas synthesizes a timeline of intervention that exposes the selective morality of Western alliances.
The 1953 Overthrow: The CIA-led coup against the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh.
The Era of the Shah: The subsequent installation of a “desperate” and “criminalist” dictatorship that served Western interests for 26 years.
The 1979 Revolution: The emergence of a sovereign Iranian state which the U.S. immediately swore to overthrow.
Thomas highlights the nature of these alliances by referencing Harry Truman’s infamous pragmatism. While Truman was speaking specifically of Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic when he said, “He might be a son of a b****, but he’s our son of a b****,” Thomas argues this exact philosophy governed the West’s support for the Shah’s brutality. The West tolerated decades of Iranian dictatorship because it was “their” dictatorship, yet they remain implacably opposed to the modernized, industrialized Iranian state that emerged post-1979. This historical double standard is most visible in the current nuclear discourse.
The Nuclear Double Standard and Military Innovation
The narrative surrounding nuclear proliferation is perhaps the most prominent example of the “might makes right” paradigm. Thomas identifies a glaring legal and moral inconsistency: the international community’s obsession with Iran’s transparent energy program versus its total silence on Israel’s clandestine arsenal.
To highlight this geopolitical hypocrisy, Thomas contrasts the two nations:
| Feature | Iran | Israel |
|---|---|---|
| IAEA Inspections | Permits regular visits and verification of facilities. | Has never conceded to a single international inspection. |
| Nuclear Status | Repeatedly maintains it has no interest in weapons. | Disclosed by a whistleblower 40 years ago to have 200 nukes. |
| Regulatory Compliance | Operates under the scrutiny of international oversight. | Operates in total secrecy in violation of all UN resolutions. |
Thomas argues that Iran’s development of hypersonic and ballistic missiles is a logical, legal response to this double standard. These innovations allow a nation in the Global South to bypass the supposedly “impenetrable” defenses of the West. He specifically cites the reported strike on the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier; regardless of U.S. denials, the development of such rapid-strike technology signals that Iran will not “cry uncle” in the face of naval encirclement. This technological defiance is the target of the West’s moralizing rhetoric regarding human rights.
Moral Inconsistency
The use of “killing its own people” as a casus belli is a recurring strategy in Western foreign policy, yet Thomas argues it lacks any legal or moral standing when applied with such blatant inconsistency. He charges the United States and Israel with “audacity,” “gall,” and “gumption” for attempting to claim the moral high ground while simultaneously presiding over what he characterizes as a “slow-moving continuous genocide” in Gaza and the West Bank.
Thomas distinguishes between the internal friction of a sovereign state and the external justification for war. While millions of citizens in any country including the United States may oppose their leadership, Thomas asserts that internal civil unrest provides no legal basis for a foreign power to orchestrate an overthrow. The “human rights” narrative is revealed as a tool of regime change rather than a genuine concern for the Iranian populace.
Ultimately, Thomas views the Western obsession with Iranian internal affairs as a distraction from the West’s own humanitarian failures. He states that a nation cannot claim to be a defender of life while facilitating large-scale slaughter elsewhere, making the “human rights” justification a moral vacuum.
The Pursuit of Justice Over Peace
In synthesizing his position, Jomo Thomas invokes the philosophical mandate of Peter Tosh: “I don’t want no peace if you can’t have equal rights and justice.” Thomas argues that the “peace” offered by the West is merely a demand for the Global South to surrender its sovereignty and resources. True global stability is impossible as long as international law is applied asymmetrically to dehumanize and destabilize nations that resist hegemony.
He issues a stern warning to the public to resist media narratives that sanitize illegal aggression. To “see clearly” is a revolutionary act in an era where the media functions as an extension of the military-industrial complex. Thomas acknowledges that standing with a nation like Iran, which is defending itself against the most powerful forces on earth, carries personal and professional risks. However, he accepts these consequences as the necessary price for maintaining legal integrity and moral clarity in a collapsing global order.