I will grant you Saudi Arabia. (It is useful to the US., as a counterweight to Iran; but hardly ethical–or even congenial to the twenty-first century.)
As for both the US and Israel, I would argue that both are much more ethical than nation-states have typically, historically been. (To compare them to some abstract model of perfection is downright ludicrous, in my view.)
It looks to me as if you are trying to have it both ways, simultaneously: Why, the UN Charter does not really nullify our national sovereignty–but then again, it kinda does…
It seems you think that a nations sovereignty is tethered to its ability to attack other nations that present no true military threat. This I why the UN was created, and the US is s founding member and a voluntary party to the charter rules…
The more Trump talks about this the more apparent to me that he really isn’t interested in war with Iran. I love that he dismissed Bolton before god and the whole world this weekend, by conceding that Bolton is a “hawk who would take on the whole world at once if he could…”
He said he has Bolton in there just to have the other side presented.
Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As
Hezbollah’s secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, “war on Iran will not remain within that country’s borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling family.”
A nation’s sovereignty is, indeed, “tethered” to its ability to use its own discretion; and mount a military campaign against whomever it considers a “threat” to its interests.