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.
The genocidal rhetoric coming of Iran makes it possession of nuclear weapons absolutely unacceptable. Consider, also, that Iran and many of the other Islamic countries already claim to be in a state of war against "The Zionist Entity."
If the UN and European nations can't band together to stop this latter day Hitler by any means necessary (fat chance) then the UN and its pretensions about "international law" and "collective security" are a joke we can no longer afford to humor.
I Corrected the Title
It is so...I was talking to several Army officers the other night, that's what they said. I spoke of Israel and they confirmed there's a real possibility that Israel will hit Iran.
Should preemtive force be used?
Yes, but only by Liberal War Heroes led by Kerry, Kerry & Clark.
faster then a deacon in a whorehouse, quicker then the blink of eye, and faster than s*it through a goose.
There was a BBC report last week that an Israeli air and ground strike on the Iranian nuclear facility is already in the works, planned for early April 2006.
Considering that the argument is designed specifically to allow Iran the time needed to perfect medium/long range delivery systems for devices they already have makes these never ending arguments immensely useful.
Millions will die tomorrow due to todays inaction, and not all of those millions will be just Jews as many hope.
One pilot.
The US doesn't have to do anything. Israel will take care of this problem easily and efficiently, like they did with Saddam's nuclear facility some years ago. The Israeli air force is so far superior to the Iranian defenses that it is unlikely they will lose a single aircraft.
if not military force...what other force do you recommend?
Yeah, OK we did that.
Now can we attack them?
By the way, a dead lawyer ought to be part of reaching any good decision.
The only troops we'll need are B-52, B-1 and B-2 crews...8-D
I've got Dec 24th in the Zot pool.
Those are good ones. I like the Deacon one best.
The Soviet Union was no threat to the continental United States in 1948 but that did not stop far-seeing leaders from establishing NATO to keep the Red Army where it was.
The first notification of the existence of a definite islamic "threat to the continental United States" will be just a bit too late.
I'm not interested in waiting for that threat to develop. The first Cold War, with determined but sane and calculating Soviets, was bad enough for my taste. Now we are talking about psychotic moslem A-holes playing around with nukes, who consider a retaliatory strike from the West as causing mere "damages."
The answer to the question in the title is, "whatever it takes."
The day we decide to bomb Iran alone without the Europeans we will face nothing but criticism.
Yes : we will be saving their asses and getting criticised for it. I say let them sweat awhile. Let Iran nuke them and then we wipe out the whole stinking monster.
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.