A Firsthand Account: Khomeini and the Dawn of a New Iran

To understand the current friction between Tehran and the West, Falk recalls a pivotal moment in history: his January 1979 encounter with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in France. This meeting occurred just one day before Khomeini returned to Tehran to a nation electrified by anti-monarchist fervor.

Falk, accompanied by Philip Luce and former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark, had witnessed the chaotic beauty and brutality of the Iranian revolution. He described the sight of the Shah’s abdication and the harrowing testimonies of doctors treating those broken by police violence during peaceful protests.

During their meeting, Khomeini’s primary anxiety was not the internal administration of a new state, but the ghost of 1953. He feared a repeat of the CIA-backed coup that had previously stripped Iran of its sovereignty, questioning whether the United States would once again intervene to protect its interests.

Governance, Minorities, and a Lost Hope for Normalization

Contrary to later perceptions, Falk noted Khomeini’s early desire for normalization with Western powers. He described a vision of Islamic governance that was surprisingly non-sectarian in its framing.

Falk specifically recalled a telling distinction in how Khomeini addressed Iran’s minorities, noting a stark difference in the discourse surrounding Jewish and Baha’i communities—a nuance that provides critical context to the evolution of the Iranian state.

The ‘Legitimacy War’ and the Power of Moral Law

While Falk is critical of the structural failures of the International Court of Justice and the UN, he rejects total cynicism. He argues that while international law may lack “teeth” to stop a superpower, it provides an indispensable weapon: moral legitimacy.

Falk points to the “legitimacy war,” where oppressed populations use the language of international law to isolate their oppressors. He cites the work of the Gaza People’s Tribunal, which he helped lead, and South Africa’s recent legal actions against Israel as prime examples.

“The Palestinians have won the legitimacy war. And most winners of the legitimacy wars in the anti-colonial context have gone on to control the political outcome, though suffering great devastation and human casualties in the process. Vietnam is one of the principal examples…”

The Nuclear Fiction: Pretexts and Double Standards

The conversation turned sharply toward the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the weaponization of nuclear diplomacy. Falk contends that the U.S. and Israel have used Iran’s nuclear program as a convenient pretext for sustained aggression.

He highlighted a glaring hypocrisy: while Iran has consistently declared nuclear weapons to be immoral and intelligence lacks proof of a weapons program, Western powers have treated Article 6 of the NPT—which mandates that nuclear states pursue disarmament—as a “useful fiction.”

This double standard is most evident in the silence regarding Israel’s undisclosed nuclear arsenal, contrasted with the fierce U.S. objections to the Iranian ambassador’s nomination as vice president at the NPT review conference.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Richard Falk mean by the ‘delusion’ of international law and global power?
Prof. Falk argues that the belief that the UN Charter or Nuremberg Principles were designed to restrict the actions of major geopolitical powers is a delusion; in reality, these powers often operate outside these constraints.

How did the 1979 meeting with Khomeini shape Falk’s view on international law and global power?
The meeting highlighted the deep distrust emerging nations had toward Western intervention, specifically recalling the 1953 CIA-backed coup, illustrating the gap between legal rhetoric and geopolitical reality.

Does international law and global power balance favor the ‘tigers’ over the ‘mice’?
Yes, Falk references a Mexican delegate’s warning that the post-1945 system was designed to “regulate the mice but let the tigers run free,” meaning small nations are constrained while superpowers are not.

What is the ‘legitimacy war’ in the context of international law and global power?
The “legitimacy war” refers to the use of international legal frameworks by oppressed or anti-colonial movements to win moral authority and global support, even when they lack physical power.

How does nuclear proliferation relate to the failure of international law and global power?
Falk posits that nuclear non-proliferation is often used as a pretext for hostility toward states like Iran, while the disarmament obligations of established nuclear powers are treated as a “useful fiction.”