The United States and Israel have launched a vociferous global campaign to justify an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel paints the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat to itself whereas the United States characterizes the Iranian program as a peril to international peace and security. Most Western European states and some Middle Eastern states, including Saudi Arabia, view the Iranian quest for nuclear energy with suspicion and alarm. Russia and China, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and numerous Muslim and non-Muslim states in Asia, Africa and, Latin America, even when they are unsure about Iran's intentions, oppose an armed attack on Iran.
As a State Party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran claims a lawful right to develop nuclear energy, just as scores of States Parties including the United States mobilize such a right to develop nuclear energy. The Iranian leaders deny, in an unambiguous language, that they intend to develop nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, had opined that Islamic law prohibits the possession of nuclear weapons. Consistent with Iranian assurances, U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran has not made a decision to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Rejecting Iranian statements as lies, Israel, more than the United States, is planning an armed attack against Iranian nuclear plants and the associated command and control headquarters. The irony is that Israel itself possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons it has built with the covert assistance of the United States. As a self-appointed sheriff of the Middle East, Israel refuses to allow any other state in the neighborhood to develop nuclear energy. All by itself, Israel unlawfully destroyed the nuclear energy plants in Iraq and Syria. Israeli intelligence agencies assassinate Iranian scientists and nuclear engineers, an illegal course of action that no other state undertakes or endorses. The United States would commit a great wrong, argues Israel's Prime Minister, if the United States does not soon start a war with Iran.
There are two distinct reasons why an armed attack on Iran is illegal under international law, whether the attacker is Israel or the United States.
First, a violation of the NPT does not justify an armed attack. The NPT carries no war clauses for its violations. Suppose that Iran is indeed in violation of the NPT as it refuses to fully submit its nuclear facilities to satisfactory inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, a dispute over the logistics of inspection with the IAEA does not furnish a sufficient basis in international law for any state, including the United States, to launch an armed attack against the State Party. Israel, which has not even signed the NPT, cannot invoke the failed IAEA inspections for justifying an armed attack on Iran, a founding member of the NPT. International law knows no rule under which a state that refuses to sign a treaty turns around to enforce the same treaty, by all means necessary, against a founding member of the treaty. To preempt any such adventures, the NPT Preamble specifically prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
Second, the U.N. Charter outlaws war in the following guiding principle: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." As States Parties to the U.N. Charter, Israel and the United States violate this principle when they threaten an armed attack against Iran, again a founding member of the Charter. Israel has not yet claimed the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. However, any such claim would be dubious. There is no credible evidence that Iran is preparing an armed attack against Israel or the United States, triggering the right to self-defense. Most important, the Security Council is well aware of the Iranian problem. The efforts to persuade the Security Council to impose economic sanctions on Iran have failed. If the Security Council is opposed even to economic sanctions, it is unlikely to authorize the use of force against Iran.
Israel and the United States may petition the Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter for the use of force to deter Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons. Bypassing the Security Council, any armed attack on Iran will be akin to the unlawful invasion of Iraq. In that case, the attack will have zero legitimacy under international law.
01096267723
jasski15000@yahoo.com
Second, the highest levels of Israeli government have stated that Iran is not so stupid so as to attack Israel, as its self-destruction would be assured. The argument for an attack is based on the logic that, were Iran to obtain a single nuclear weapon, that would start a ME arms race and destabilizes the region; resulting in an existentiel threat to Israel- who, by the way- now has a virtual monopoly on the ME nuke market and wants to keep it that way. The term 'existential' is used only because so many willfully ignorant people interpret it to mean that it would threaten the immediate existence of Israel- again- a threat Israel itself dimisses.
Finally, as for international law? It is law with zero teeth when applied to major powers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpKvEjQEMY
Until we have a news media which truly is “fair and balanced” I will be an isolationist.
Actually, one wonders why Israel doesn't use the Iranians claim to wish to destroy Israel, coupled with their weapons-grade enrichment program to declare an ultimatum to Iran;
"You say you want to destroy us, you are demonstrably developing technology that will give you the ability to do so. Therefore, we reserve the right under Article 51 to defend ourselves. If you wish not to be attacked, then declare officially your peaceful intentions toward Israel by such and such a date."
If a burglar comes into my house with a gun and points it at me, saying, "I'm going to kill you," am I justified in shooting him first? I think so.
Is that, indeed, what Iran has done here? If so, then Israel is justified. Maybe. I still don't think we are, though. Has Iran threatened to destroy the US? Has it threatened to attack the US?
Finally, 'justified' or not, I think it would be a WILDLY counterproductive act, regardless who does it.
Aside from the usual "Death to America, Death to Israel" Days in Iran ... most of the threats are reserved for Israel but yes they have threatened the US and Europe
""God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on October 26, 2005
In 2008 Iran threatend to attack US bases
In April 2010, Iran threatened that nuclear devices will go off in the US
Let's see, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada...I'm sure there are a few more but I can't remember them....
How many has Iran invaded? None.
Mistaking political rhetoric for threats is folly. Deeds speak louder than words.
Just what is the point you are trying to make in your babbling and link??
Israel has violated UN resolution designed by the Arab League and supported by 52 Muslim Countries ? Surprise surprise.
The very same gang that indoctrinates it's people that Jews are descended from pigs and apes and should all be killed?
http://vimeo.com/35139757
which I'm sure you would support Macready because as you said "there is no need for war"
How are they not?
"Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that "extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war." The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions."
http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2011/05/targeted-assassination-of-osama-bin.html
"There is no credible evidence that Iran is preparing an armed attack against Israel or the United States, triggering the right to self-defense."
China and Russia's refusal to allow harsher sanctions on Iran are going to guarantee an eventual war. I have to wonder if that is their goal.
It may be true, right now, if only because they don't have a weapon to use yet. It may be semantics, only, but they may not be 'preparing an armed attack'. Yet.
Given that, has Iran threatened to attack the US? I'm not sure, but I don't think it has?
I think it has threatened to attack Israel? If so, arming with that capability might justify a 'defensive attack'. Maybe.
I grew up in an era when we believed that our enemy should always get the first shot. Nukes don't change the game. They just make that first shot hurt a lot more.
So, if we wait, we could get nuked.
Should we always attack any country developing technology that could do us harm? How much harm?
Or, how much must they dislike us, before we are justified? Does just doing things we don't like qualify? What if they say they don't like us? Must they pound their shoe in the rostrum in the UN - is that sufficient - "we will bury you"?
What if they are an authoritarian country we are wary of, and who will be more powerful than we in a generation?
Does that make it OK to attack China today, because we'll be weaker than they are in 20-30 years? How could that be justified? ("It's all in self-defense"?)
Note that Germany started the bloodiest wars in history (WW I and WW II), based on that calculation. Was that right?