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.
And Iran with a nuclear device is what nightmares are made of.
Should force be used?
Yes.
That may or may not be so however, a use of force is not necessarily going to war.
Do ya think that the Israelis would agree with ya if the "mullahs" were on the verge of getting nukes???????
Do ya think that the Israelis would stand idly by as a soon-to-have nukes Iran calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"?????
Do ya think that certain passages from a book written during the 20's by an Austrian Corporal might color their thinking????
YES!
Since they're working feverishly on nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, that should be enough. Add that to the bizzare and dangerous rhetoric coming out of Tehran lately, and NOW seems a little tardy.
By definition, he is prepared to accept that outcome, as the natural consequence of the actions he supports.
In other words, the argument is itself useless.
I can only think of two legitimate questions regarding what to do with Iran. One: Do we use nuclear weapons? Two: If yes, do we use them or does Israel use them?
Sure, why not? It worked so well against Saddam!
This would make Iran fair game to anyone in the world right now. Certainly, an undesireable situation for the Mullahs.
But the world doesn't take non-proliferation seriously.
See post 31
I just hope that when Israel strikes... it will be enough to eliminate the problem.
And I'm definitely NOT a war hawk. I fully understand that you don't expend blood and treasure unless it is absolutely necessary to protect our vital interests. It's just that this is THE time in history to git 'r done, with the Soviet Union out of the way once and for all.
Georgetown has little credibility with this subject. They have been in financial straits for a few years, now. They have recently accepted millions from Prince al-Walid Bin Talal, of Saudi Arabia for the construction of a Center for Christian/Muslim Understanding. This money is from the same individual that Giuliani waved off after Sept 11. Of course the Georgetown staff would like us to "consider other options." They're beholden to the guy, now.
But........give them the bomb and.........
In a New York minute. In a heartbeat. Faster than greased lightning. I leave out anything?
how about thorough and complete?
Don't forget the first rule of dealing with nutcase tyrants:
Don't Panic.
Yes, force should be used (if it's not already too late).
The answer of course is because they are a terrorist nation run by a madman. If he has them, he will likely use them, therefore it is a necessity that he not have them.
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.