Posted on 12/18/2005 2:16:41 PM PST by billorites
According to Mohamed ElBaradei, the world is "losing patience" with Iran. And, indeed, recent press reports indicate that Israel is considering the use of force to prevent Iran from further developing a nuclear program. The potential of such preemptive force brings up the ghost of the Osirak Reactor bombing and raises a number of critical legal and political questions.
Preemption and International Law
While there is a debate among international legal scholars about the permissibility of the preemptive use of force under the United Nations Charter, most scholars and states would acknowledge that "anticipatory self-defense" continues to be lawful under existing international law. The classic case that affirms the criteria for the lawful use of preemptive force is the Caroline incident. The Caroline was a ship owned by American nationals that allegedly had been used in providing support for an insurrection in Canada. In late December of 1837, while the ship was docked on the American side of the Niagra River, British forces crossed the river, set the ship on fire and sent it over Niagra Falls. The United States-- through its Secretary of State Daniel Webster--protested, and the British ultimately apologized. But in the course of the diplomatic exchanges that took place, two criteria for permissible preemptive self-defense were articulated: 1) Necessity and 2) Proportionality. First, the state using force must be able to demonstrate that an attack on it was imminent. As Webster noted in one of his letters to the British, the state would have to "show a necessity of self-defence, [that is] instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Second, the state using force would have to respond in a manner proportionate to the imminent threat.
In 1981, when Israeli bombers attacked the Iraqi Osirak Reactor, the United Nations Security Council condemned the action, finding that the attack was "in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct." During the discussion at the Council, several states criticized Israel for failing to meet the necessity criterion of Caroline because no Iraqi attack was imminent. The British representativie to the Council, Sir Anthony Parsons, for example, argued that "[t]here was no instant or overwhelming necessity for self-defence."
If Israel were to attack Iran now, the same conclusion would obtain. While an Iranian move toward the development of a nuclear weapons program is extraordinarily troubling, there is no indication at this time that an Iranian attack on Israel-- or any other state for that matter-- is imminent. Accordingly, a preemptive strike by Israeli would be a violation of international law as understood by the great majority of legal scholars and states.
Preemption and Politics
And not only would a preemptive attack on Iran violate international law, it would also be bad politics. Steve Bainbridge has recently posted:
The idea that there is a quick military fix to the problem thus strikes me as implausible. It may well be that a policy of economic sanctions, containment, and deterrence is the best option, despite concerns as to whether Iran can be deterred. One thing does seem clear, however, and that is that the US will come in for a lot of the blame if Israel attacks Iran. It is not in our national interest to let Israel use US-supplied weapons in a lone wolf capacity. We have no business letting Israel drag us into a wider war in the Middle East.
Mohamed ElBaradei has suggested another approach:
Sweden-Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday he thinks the United States will need to give Iran a security guarantee before a final agreement can be reached regarding the country's atomic program.
ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, also said the U.S. will need to become more involved in the stalled negotiations between Iran and the European Union, aimed at making Tehran permanently freeze nuclear enrichment.
"I think part of the negotiations should be providing Iran with security assurances," ElBaradei said after meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson to discuss the work of the IAEA. "I hope that as the negotiations with the European Union proceed that the United States at a certain point will be more engaged. We look at the United States ... to do the heavy lifting in the area of security."
In September, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and energy aid, and ElBaradei said a similar package will be needed to bring the negotiations with Iran to a successful close. Tehran temporarily froze its enrichment program in November 2004, but the Europeans want it permanently halted.
"I very much see (security assurances by the U.S.) as part of the final solution," ElBaradei said.
Both Bainbridge and ElBaradei make sense. Using military force against Iran would be disastrous. The Iraqi conflict has enflamed the situation in the Middle East enough. The United States should work to develop a diplomatic approach that employs both the stick of sanctions and the carrot of security assurances. It should use all its influence to strongly discourage any state in the region from using military force against Iran. Perhaps there will come a time when such use of force would make sense, but that time is not now.
In a New York minute. In a heartbeat. Faster than greased lightning. I leave out anything?
Too many hand wring Neville Chamberlains in this world today.
Think back to this hypothetical headline from 1937:
Preventing a Nuclear Germany-- Should Military Force be Used?
The filthbags now in charge in Iran make Hitler look like a 10 year old schoolgirl by comparison.
Should Military Force be Used?
I say yes.
Off the record, the military will tell you this.
Yesterday.
Lets see. Yes, Yes, and Yes.
1. Let's finish up in Iraq first and give the America-hating mullah's time to let it sink in.
2. Give the Iranians the opportunity to overthrow the current regime and implement democracy for themselves.
I am sick to death of Americans dying for and at the hands of Muslims.
If we get into a crises where something has to be done NOW then go ahead ... but even then good luck trying to sell it to the American public.
War with Iran would be disastrous.
The only guarantee the US should give is that of the Bush Doctrine of the preemptive use of force.
Hell yes!
I don't think that military force is really practical against Iran, unless they attack us first. For one thing, it would shut down oil flowing from the Gulf, and that would mean $30 or $40 a gallon gasoline, not to mention a shortage of everything else as well. It would probably trigger a world wide depression. It would be a very bloody war that would be difficult to fight without oil.
Probably the only way the war could be fought as a practical matter would be with nuclear missiles.
Now that's some dangerous hyperbole. The Iranians talk the talk. Hitler walked the walk. Hitler (and Stalin) still make the mullahs look small time. The current Iranian crackpot is more on par with Mussolini, but not as bright.
If we attack Iran we can count on counterstrikes here in the USA. They've had lots of time to plan something.
Can't be applied to the nuclear era. The old law is inadequate. It's not America's or Israel's fault if international law hasn't kept up with the realities of the 20th Century (never mind the 21st).
The clearest indication yet as to why Mohamed Elbaradei did not get the Nobel Prize for IQ!
IMO if Iran had a way to attack us we would have already been attacked. Right now I believe Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq. Thas said.
Should Iran be atacked militarily Yes
Should the United State ba part of that attack? No. Not unless we are practically begged to be there.
Right now Iran is no threat to the Comntinental United State, while it is a threat to Europe.If the Europeans wish to live under threat from a crazy bunch of persian scum then thats their choice, If they wish to take Iran on with a European Coalition and need Logistic or Air helps then we should supply that. Europe let us down now let them hold themselves up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.