Preventing a Nuclear Iran-- Should Military Force be Used?

Georgetown University ^ | December 13, 2005 | Anthony Clark Arend

[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. 

[Salem]

hinckley buzzard wrote, "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."

Neither am I, or I hope the rest of the sane world. The apocalyptic Islamist mindset of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime has been amply explored in recent months in great detail on Free Republic. As LibWhacker wrote concerning previous "international law" on preemptive force, "...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)."

That is reality. The nuclear factor raises the stakes way too high, and old ideas of "containment" and "sanctions" are just impediments to coming to grips with the fact that lunatics like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only understand one thing: Force. And men and women of caliber willing to utilize that force in a self-defensive manner.

Although I certainly support any reform efforts within the country, the ability of the reformers, at least now, is not a viable option without more overt help from outside.

Outside of that, I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power before 2006 is out, radically changing the face of that whole region—unless the West finds the military, political, moral and spiritual will to stop this insanity. Iran will be a challenge we cannot escape facing, and President Bush's most pressing foreign policy challenge over the next few years.

I'm pinging Southack if he cares to contribute.

---

AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...  by backhoe
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review

[Fred Nerks]

"Outside of that, I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power before 2006 is out, radically changing the face of that whole region—unless the West finds the military, political, moral and spiritual will to stop this insanity. Iran will be a challenge we cannot escape facing, and President Bush's most pressing foreign policy challenge over the next few years."

First the Saturday People then the Sunday People, remember? Islamofascists must be stopped!

[Ciexyz]

There's international law, and then there's G-d's law.

He who watches over Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

[sheik yerbouty]

Time is running out...

[Ciexyz]

Who says that it has to be the Americans who will do the deed? Think on it, friend.

[Ciexyz]

Europe let us down now let them hold themselves up.

Bwaaahaaahaaa. You jest, my friend. Can you really imagine those Euro-wussies standing up for themselves?!

[r9etb]

The filthbags now in charge in Iran make Hitler look like a 10 year old schoolgirl by comparison.

Well, no, not really -- they're far less efficient, and only about equally repressive. The Iranians are, however, more sophisticated than the Taliban, who they otherwise most closely resemble.

And mention of the Taliban points out the most promising approach -- we back indigenous Iranian opposition groups, and destabilize the mullahs. I'm betting they're a whole lot less stable than they seem to be.

[Calpernia]

Russia: Military Weekly Sees 'Explosive Consequences' of Iran Missile Deal
Report by Aleksandr Babakin and Vladimir Ivanov:
"Bombshell for Greater Middle East? Delivery of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems to Iran Threatens To Have Explosive Consequences"
Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye
Thursday, December 15, 2005

At the end of November a contract was signed between the Russian Federation and Iran on the delivery of a major consignment of Russian Tor M-1 surface-to-air missile systems. According to some information, the deal -- which has taken four years to prepare -- totals close to $1 billion. In line with the accords reached, 29 of the Izhevsk-manufactured ZRK (surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems) will be on alert status with Iran's PVO (air defense) troops before the end of 2009.

On the face of it -- another undoubted success for the Russian defense industry complex. 's experts, however, are pointing out that the contract may provide the impetus for a new spiral of the arms race in the Greater Middle East (Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok), as this problem region is now referred to by the head of Russia's MID (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Sergey Lavrov. And it is by no means ruled out that the former chief protagonists of the Cold War era will play a most active part in the said process.

Moscow's Position

Speaking about the sale of the SAM systems to Iran, Mikhail Kamynin, official spokesman of the Russian Federation Foreign Ministry, emphasized that "all contracts being concluded in the military-technical field are fully in accordance with international obligations -- including in the nonproliferation sphere -- as well as being fully in accordance with Russian legislation." "All this also applies to the contract with Iran, which relates exclusively to defensive armaments," the diplomat explained.

The delivery of a major consignment of state-of-the-art SAM systems to Tehran has taken all the players on the world arms market completely by surprise. The agreement had been prepared in conditions of total secrecy. By all appearances, the regrettable experience of Moscow's attempted sale of operational-tactical systems to Damascus at the start of the year was taken into account. On that occasion, under pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin was compelled to ban the export of Iskander-E OTK (operational-tactical systems) to Syria.

Meanwhile, according to certain information, Tehran is also seeking to get hold of S-300 medium- and long-range air defense missile systems. In combination with the Tor systems, they have the capability to keep Iran's skies firmly closed to a likely adversary's main offensive air weapons. Admittedly, as was told by an informed source at the Federal Agency for Industry, the air defense concern is currently not in a position to ensure delivery of S-300's to Iran. The only way to satisfy a possible order is to borrow from Russian Federation Armed Forces stockpiles. In that eventuality, the S-300's are handed over to industry for subsequent modernization.

Meanwhile, Reuters news agency is citing the words of one Western diplomat who is tracking the development of relations between Moscow and Tehran. He has stated that the arms deal that has been done is causing him serious concern. As the source emphasized, "For a long time now Russia has positioned itself as a peace broker between Iran and Western countries. And suddenly Moscow quite unexpectedly drops this bombshell. This makes no sense at all."

But Sergey Ivanov, vice premier and minister of defense of the Russian Federation, after confirming the signing of the contract with Tehran on the delivery of the SAM systems, was quick to point out that "this will definitely not mean a change in the regional balance of forces." "Any arms deliveries by Russia are conducted within the legislative framework and in accordance with international obligations," the head of Russia's military department stressed.

Certain of our own military experts totally disagree with the minister's opinion, believing that the delivery of such a large weapons consignment to the Greater Middle East region will inevitably entail an imbalance in the military potentials of states that are hostilely disposed toward one another. They maintain that, beyond any doubt, the United States and Israel will respond to this action by deploying additional combat weaponry. Tel Aviv and Washington will hardly resign themselves to the notion that Iran will be able to reliably ensure its own protection and remain unpunished if it attempts to undertake any hostile actions against Israel or other countries within the sphere of American interests.

Washington's Anger

People in the US capital have reacted extremely negatively to the Russian-Iranian contract. Thus, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli stated at a briefing that the sale of SAM missiles to Tehran does not meet Washington's interests in the Middle East. The official from America's foreign policy department specially emphasized that "Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism. It is involved in actions that we deem to be hostile and harmful," and the United States "views the proposed deal in precisely that context." That is why at this moment the United States is continuing "discussion of this topic with Russia."

Washington's anger, however, is explained not only by the above-cited reasons. The White House, it would appear, is furious that the Kremlin has twisted it around its little finger. The point is that US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who visited Moscow 2 December, has declared that the issue of arms sales to Iran was raised at the Russian Foreign Ministry. By all appearances, however, the transatlantic guest knew nothing about the Tors. Furthermore, in an interview for the Ekho Moskvy radio station he noted the proximity of Washington's and Moscow's positions on Tehran's nuclear program. The fact of major arms sales to Iran that has now come to light is capable of giving a new twist to the tension in relations between the United States and Russia. Because, as Burns put it, "for the last 25 years Iran has been giving support to terrorists in the Middle East and in the United States." "For this reason our relations with that country are very bad," Condoleezza Rice's deputy stated. "You can understand why we do not support the sale of weapons to such a country," he emphasized.

Of course, one may recall here that in 2000 Russia left a secret agreement with the United States on restricting arms deliveries to Tehran. It had undertaken not to conclude contracts connected with the export of weapons and military hardware to Iran. In its turn, Washington promised Moscow assistance in gaining access to world markets for military technologies. But the sides failed to make good on their promises, and the treaty, known as the "Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol," was canceled.

At the same time, let us not forget either how the American Administration welcomed the "fruitful actions" by Russia during the discussion of Tehran's nuclear program. As Ereli expressed it, there is "good news concerning Russia's being a part of the international efforts aimed at bringing Iran into line with the wishes of the international community." And now -- like a bolt from the blue -- we have Russia's decision to sell SAM missiles to Iran...

Tel Aviv Is Furious

Immediately following the appearance in the press of the announcement of the Russian-Iranian contract on the SAM missile sale, the leadership of the Jewish state flew into a rage in the full meaning of the word. As the Israeli newspaper writes, the country's Foreign Ministry "damned this deal." Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's foreign policy department, declared that "the Iranian regime is an extreme regime, it supports radical terrorist groupings and only recently declared its opposition to the establishment of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East." "When a certain country seeks to boost Iran's military potential, it is helping to reinforce the most negative forces in this region," the diplomat stressed.

Indeed, for Tel Aviv, Tehran is now Public Enemy No. 1. Speaking 1 December at an annual meeting of publishers at the Sokolov Center, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Iran "represents a threat for Israel, for the countries of the Middle East, and for many other of the world's states." "This is why," Sharon pointed out, "other free countries that realize the existence of such a terrible danger must join with the United States, which is leading the efforts to resolve this problem."

He voiced the gloomy assessments of a specialist whom he described as "an anonymous intelligence source." The leader of the Israeli Government announced that, in the agent's opinion, Iran is a few months away from the point of no return with regard to its nuclear project (Iran nakhoditsya v neskolkikh mesyatsakh ot nevozmozhnosti vernutsya k svoyemu yadernomu proyektu). He stressed that neither Israel nor other countries can accept the prospect of the appearance of nuclear weapons in Tehran's hands and that Tel Aviv is prepared to use force. In the prime minister's words, Iran's enemies possess all the requisite "potential" for the use of force to halt Tehran's nuclear preparations, and he added: "Before resorting to force, however, everything possible must be done to compel Iran to halt this activity."

Sharon's words echoed an earlier statement by the chief of Israel's military intelligence, Major-General Aharon Zeevi. Maybe it was his opinion that was heard in the Israeli premier's speech. Addressing members of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, the leader of the special service allowed himself to voice the following conclusion: "If by the end of 2006 (as published) the international community fails to ensure by diplomatic means the blocking of Iran's work to create a nuclear bomb, then there will subsequently be no grounds for continuing the efforts in this direction. And it will be possible to say that the international attempts to halt this have failed."

Some Israeli parliamentarians have perceived Gen. Zeevi's demarche as a hint that by April of next year the "Iran problem" may require a military solution. Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, has declared: "The comments by the head of military intelligence paint a grim, alarming, and somber picture." And he added: "Iran intends to become a nuclear power in its region, and the world is powerless to prevent this."

Incidentally, Israel conducted successful tests 2 December of the Arrow SAM missile system, which official spokesmen of the national Defense Ministry describe as "the answer to the growing threat of ballistic missile strikes in this region." A modernization program for the antimissiles is being implemented jointly by Israel and the United States. According to Israeli Defense Minister (as published) Yaakov Toran, "the tests carried out will permit a substantial increase in the TTKh (tactical-technical specifications) of this system and it will be able to resist any aerial threat."

The specifications of a mock-up of an enemy ballistic missile that was successfully destroyed by an antimissile launched from an Israeli air base located in the center of the country corresponded to the tactical-technical specifications of Iran's Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The mock-up was launched from a military airplane flying over the Mediterranean Sea.

Tehran's Responses

Commenting on the conclusion of the agreement to deliver Russian SAM systems to his country, Hamid-Reza Asefi, official spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of Iran, pointed out, in particular: "Iran's cooperation with Russia in this sphere is fully in accordance with international legislation and world practice." He also ruled out the possibility of separate Iranian-American negotiations on the nuclear program and spoke about the undesirability of Washington's participation in the discussion of the said issue at the European Union level.

In all probability, the Iranian military had long ago already determined which installations Tehran is planning to protect using the Russian Tor systems. In light, however, of the statement by Ali al-Din Burujardi, the chairman of the Islamic Republic's Majles Committee for External Affairs and Defense, on the proposed construction of 20 nuclear reactors, which has been approved by the national Atomic Energy Agency, it is not ruled out that these will first of all be protected by Iran's air defense troops. The conclusion of the contract with Moscow becomes even more logical in light of the threats directed at Tehran by Tel Aviv.

And Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, announced 4 December in an interview for AFP that "Iran's patience is almost at an end" and work to enrich uranium at the Natanz nuclear facility may be resumed within a few months. In the secretary's words, "the forthcoming topic of negotiations with the Europeans on Iran's nuclear program will be the creation in Iran of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes and nothing further will be discussed." At the same time, Ali Larijani emphasized that "Iran is not seeking to possess nuclear weapons," but it has the legitimate right to develop nuclear energy.

From the Files

The Tor M-1 surface-to-air missile system is manufactured by the Izhevskiy Elektromekhanicheskiy Zavod Kupol (Izhevsk Kupol Electrical Engineering Plant) FGUP (Federal State Unitary Enterprise). It is capable of the simultaneous detection and identification of up to 48 targets and of tracking and attacking two targets at once flying at altitudes of from 20 to 6,000 meters at a radius of from 1 to 12 km. The system is designed to protect important administrative, economic, and military installations and the forward echelons of ground formations against strikes by antiradar and cruise missiles, remotely piloted vehicles, glide bombs, and aircraft and helicopters, including those employing stealth technology.

The S-300 surface-to-air systems are manufactured by the Kontsern PVO Almaz-Antey (Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern). They can engage up to six targets and hit aircraft and helicopters at distances of from 3 to 200 km. Ballistic missiles can be destroyed at a radius of from 5 to 40 km.

(Description of Source: Moscow Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye in Russian -- Weekly independent military newspaper published by Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

---

For more translations and news on terrorism, visit http://www.lauramansfield.com

[Dr.Zoidberg]

You know, nukes are incredibly dangerous. Those who don't have the experience to handle them safely could easily detonate the device prematurely. Such a premature detonation would utterly destroy the facility and the techs doing the hot work.

I wonder if the Israeli government has realized this yet?

If such an industrial accident occured, it would be impossible to blame the Israelis. Such an accusation could reasonably be seen as just more antisemitism.

Just thinking out loud...

[Dr.Zoidberg]

And yes, I'm aware there are multiple facilities. Seems if they can't handle one, maybe their training is so shoddy there could be multiple accidents.

Won't happen, but if it did....

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Southack]

"Outside of that, I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power before 2006 is out, radically changing the face of that whole region—unless the West finds the military, political, moral and spiritual will to stop this insanity. Iran will be a challenge we cannot escape facing, and President Bush's most pressing foreign policy challenge over the next few years. I'm pinging Southack if he cares to contribute."

It's safe to say that something will be done, however, for a mental reference point, if nothing was done, then Iran has a window in which it can't develop a nuclear weapon within the next 6 months, though almost certainly will have one within the next 24 months.

Certainly the Iranians think that something will be done. Since early this year they've been ramping up their domestic production of torpedoes. They've also been buying anti-aircraft missile systems from abroad and building their own shore to sea anti-ship missiles.

So the Iranian leadership is preparing for a blockade (hence the torpedoes) and air strikes.

This also shows that Iran is preparing to go forward regardless of saber rattling. Idle threats aren't going to stop the mad mullahs.

Frankly, the blockade looks like the obvious option...it puts forth the hope of a bloodless victory...gives Iranian dissidents leverage...destabilizes the mad mullahs...cuts off Iranian funding (read: oil) and access to foreign technology (e.g. North Korea).

But if you dropped a military strategist from the 18th century into a map room and showed him that the U.S. has put extensive ground forces on Iran's East in Afghanistan, on Iran's West in Iraq, along with extensive naval forces in the South and allied forces in the North of Iran...you'd get the obvious answer that a full scale ground war option was being given to the current American President.

So factoring in "allied" sputterings, I see: first sanctions and UN condemnation...then a blockade...then airstrikes under some very different circumstances (e.g. students need help in rebelling against the mad mullahs...or nuclear production is reached earlier than intel estimates)...then either a ground invasion or a full scale nuclear attack (Presidential discretion).

And if not by the U.S. then by Israel.

Which is to say that something will happen one way or the other (much to Vladimir Putin's delight re: Chechnya).

Iran will either give up their nukes the easy way or the hard way.

Iran holds no cards. Iran can't yet project force. Tough.

[BnBlFlag]

First, we need to give some very heavy duty aid to the Iranian opposition.
If that doesn't work, we may have to nuke 'em.

[agincourt1415]

Should Force be used. YES!

[Cementjungle]

I just hope that when Israel strikes... it will be enough to eliminate the problem.

If Israel strikes it could exacerbate the situation. The anti-Israel rhetoric is running high now in the Mosques all around the region, and beyond. The word "powderkeg" comes to mind.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Islamofascists must be stopped!

We're working on it – first Iraq...

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

[T]wo 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. Second, the state using force would have to respond in a manner proportionate to the imminent threat.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." - President Bush, 2003 State of the Union

President Bush in 2003 posited a third criterium: Preemption must be done while it is still possible, regardless of how far in the future the imminent threat is expected to actually materialize, in many cases so that more extreme action will not be necessary.

[Fred Nerks]

Traffic sign outside Medina, Saudi Arabia. Guess we could start with our own street signs!

[TChad]

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.

This is insane. These effete cretins think that the appropriate, civilized, sensible course of action would be to delay any military response against Iran until it is almost too late. They want to PLAY CHICKEN WITH ARMAGEDDON.

We have a very brief window of opportunity to limit the supply of nuclear weapons that will be available to future terrorists. Neither North Korea nor Iran should be permitted to realize their nuclear ambitions. Either we destroy some buildings now, or we will watch millions of people be destroyed in the future.

[Salem]

Some insights from Southack at post 72 on possible future events with Iran.

Thanks, Olde FReeper.  

---

AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...  by backhoe
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review