TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: some people claim that iraq war justifies russia invasion of ukraine

Fact Check: some people claim that iraq war justifies russia invasion of ukraine

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
✓
VERDICT
True

# The Iraq War and Its Alleged Justification for Russia's Invasion of Ukraine ## Introduction In the complex landscape of international relations, h...

The Iraq War and Its Alleged Justification for Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Introduction

In the complex landscape of international relations, historical events often serve as reference points for current conflicts. A notable claim circulating in political discourse is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 provides a moral or strategic justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This assertion, while controversial, reflects a broader debate about the ethics of military intervention and the implications of past actions on present geopolitical dynamics. This article will explore this claim, providing context, analysis, and evidence to understand the nuances involved.

Background

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was predicated on the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a significant threat to global security. However, the subsequent failure to find such weapons led to widespread criticism of the invasion, with many labeling it an unjustified act of aggression. The war resulted in significant civilian casualties and long-term instability in the region, raising questions about the legitimacy of the U.S. actions and their consequences for international norms regarding sovereignty and military intervention.

In contrast, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was justified by President Vladimir Putin on various grounds, including the alleged need to protect Russian-speaking populations and counter NATO's eastward expansion. Critics argue that these justifications are similarly flawed and serve as a veneer for imperial ambitions. The parallels drawn between these two invasions have sparked heated debates among scholars, policymakers, and the public.

Analysis

The claim that the Iraq War justifies Russia's actions in Ukraine can be understood through several lenses: moral hypocrisy, historical precedent, and the implications of military intervention.

Moral Hypocrisy

One of the primary arguments supporting the claim is the notion of moral hypocrisy. Critics of U.S. foreign policy argue that the U.S. lacks the moral authority to condemn Russia's actions in Ukraine given its own history of military intervention. Javed Ali, an associate professor of practice, stated, "It's easy to understand why people think the U.S. has no morals to criticize or punish Russia based on what we did in Iraq" [2]. This sentiment reflects a broader frustration with the perceived double standards in international relations, where powerful nations often act without accountability.

Historical Precedent

The historical context of both invasions reveals significant similarities. Both the U.S. and Russia employed dubious justifications for their military actions. The U.S. claimed that Iraq posed a threat due to its alleged WMDs, which were never found, while Russia has framed its invasion as a response to NATO's expansion and the alleged persecution of Russian speakers in Ukraine. Critics argue that both invasions relied on pretexts that were not substantiated by evidence, thus undermining the legitimacy of the actions taken [4].

Furthermore, both conflicts have resulted in significant civilian casualties and long-term instability. The Iraq War led to a humanitarian crisis, with estimates of civilian deaths ranging from 180,000 to over a million [4]. Similarly, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has resulted in substantial loss of life and displacement of people, raising ethical questions about the justifications for war.

Implications of Military Intervention

The Iraq War has had lasting implications for international norms regarding military intervention. The failure to establish a stable government in Iraq and the rise of extremist groups like ISIS have demonstrated the potential consequences of military actions based on flawed justifications. As noted by Noam Chomsky, the Russian invasion of Ukraine "has no (moral) justification," and the lessons from Iraq should serve as a cautionary tale for future interventions [5].

Evidence

Several sources highlight the ongoing debate regarding the parallels between the Iraq War and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. For instance, a symposium published in the American Journal of International Law discusses how the Russian invasion challenges the established norms of territorial integrity and the use of force, echoing the debates that arose during the Iraq War [1]. Additionally, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald emphasizes the uncomfortable similarities between the two invasions, noting that both relied on questionable justifications and resulted in significant civilian suffering [4].

Moreover, political opinions within Iraq regarding the Ukraine conflict illustrate the complexities of these comparisons. Some factions view Russia's actions through the lens of their grievances against the U.S. for the Iraq War, suggesting that historical context shapes contemporary perspectives [3]. This dynamic underscores the interconnectedness of global conflicts and the importance of historical awareness in understanding current events.

Conclusion

The claim that the Iraq War justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine is rooted in a complex interplay of moral hypocrisy, historical precedent, and the implications of military intervention. While the two conflicts are not identical, the parallels drawn between them serve to highlight the challenges of establishing a coherent and ethical framework for international relations. As the world grapples with the consequences of these invasions, it is crucial to reflect on the lessons learned and the moral responsibilities of powerful nations in their pursuit of military action.

References

  1. Chehtman, Alejandro. "Unpacking the comparison between Ukraine and Iraq." American Journal of International Law, 20 March 2023. Link
  2. Ali, Javed. "Ali discusses comparisons of invasions of Iraq and Ukraine." Ford School of Public Policy, 2022. Link
  3. Ramani, Samuel. "What does Russia's war in Ukraine mean for Iraq?" Middle East Institute, 2022. Link
  4. "Russia-Ukraine war has uncomfortable parallels with our invasion of Iraq." Sydney Morning Herald, 23 March 2023. Link
  5. Chomsky, Noam. "'Not a Justification but a Provocation': Chomsky on the Root Causes of the Russia-Ukraine War." CounterPunch, 28 June 2022. Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Unilever is selling all of its shares in its struggling Ivory Coast unit, which employs some 160 people.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Unilever is selling all of its shares in its struggling Ivory Coast unit, which employs some 160 people.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Unilever is selling all of its shares in its struggling Ivory Coast unit, which employs some 160 people.

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Alaa M. was arrested in summer 2020 after some of his victims recognized him from a TV documentary about Homs.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Alaa M. was arrested in summer 2020 after some of his victims recognized him from a TV documentary about Homs.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Alaa M. was arrested in summer 2020 after some of his victims recognized him from a TV documentary about Homs.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: At Home may close some locations, with reports indicating that around 20 stores are set to shut down.
True

Fact Check: At Home may close some locations, with reports indicating that around 20 stores are set to shut down.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: At Home may close some locations, with reports indicating that around 20 stores are set to shut down.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: A federal judge ruled on a Monday in 2023 that some of the Trump administration’s grant terminations are 'void and illegal.'
True

Fact Check: A federal judge ruled on a Monday in 2023 that some of the Trump administration’s grant terminations are 'void and illegal.'

Detailed fact-check analysis of: A federal judge ruled on a Monday in 2023 that some of the Trump administration’s grant terminations are 'void and illegal.'

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: On December 17, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered a New York court to reconsider whether some religious organizations should be exempt from a state regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions.
True

Fact Check: On December 17, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered a New York court to reconsider whether some religious organizations should be exempt from a state regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: On December 17, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered a New York court to reconsider whether some religious organizations should be exempt from a state regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: some people claim that iraq war justifies russia invasion of ukraine | TruthOrFake Blog