by heathlander, Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:13:42 AM EST
This is a thought experiment. Both Israel and the United States have been openly advocating and planning for the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for some time now. This is preventive war, and is illegal under international law. According to a high-level 2004 UN panel, unilateral force is only justified in the event of an "armed attack" or if a "threatened armed attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate". For an action to qualify as `preemptive' (as opposed to the uncontroversially illegal `preventive'), it must be in response to"incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent". Now, it is obvious that no such evidence exists in the case of Iran. Thus, any use of force aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capacity would be preventive, not preemptive, and would thus be illegal.
by Ethelred, Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:10:39 PM EST
Readers of my previous post will note that I have said that the Decider doesn't have any options except to follow the proposal of The Iraq Study Group by engaging Iran and Syria in a dialogue.
Thinking about it, I find that there must be a growing belief the Decider's bird brain that he must use
The Nuclear Option
What would it entail? Well, rest assured that Iran's nuclear facilities are in the middle of population centers. So, it would entail perhaps a Hiroshima and a Nagasaki.
1) the Decider gets to think for a few moments that he will go down in history as the Leader Who Won the War on Terror
2) Israel gets to believe that the sin of half-way measures committed in their bombing of Beirut has been expiated
3) "moderate" Sunni governments such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan get to breathe easier with the knowledge that the threat of Iran has been eliminated
1) 1), 2), and 3) above are bullshit.
2) Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall into the hands of Al Qaeda (no friend to "moderate" Sunni governments)
3) Iran's power is in no way diminished, unless you want to call the deaths of a million civilians as a dimishment of power
4) Oil becomes unobtainable in the Middle East as the government in Saudi Arabia falls, etc.
by heathlander, Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:28:51 AM EST
Today, the Prime Minister presented a White Paper outlining his (and Gordon Brown's) support for the renewal of Britain's `nuclear deterrent'. In doing so, he supported a policy that is illegal under international law. Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Britain is a signatory, states:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
by heathlander, Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:32:10 PM EST
Reading about the Iranian nuclear "crisis", one gets the impression of two entirely separate and completely different "Iran crises" being described as if they were one and the same thing.
The first "Iran crisis" exists (only) in the rhetoric of political leaders. You've got President Bush declaring that "Iran's nuclear ambitions are not in the world's interests", describing an Iranian nuclear weapon as "unacceptable" and warning that, in the event of continued Iranian enrichment of uranium, "all options are on the table".
by heathlander, Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:09:49 AM EST
Speaking yesterday at the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly (a tough crowd), Likud chairman and former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu used apocalyptic language to emphasise the threat posed by Iran, not only to Israel but to the entire world. "Everything else pales before this," he intoned gravely.