Wouldn't an Israeli military attack on Iran be a violation of international law?

[Comrade Grumpy]

Can someone help me out here?

States can attack other states only for immediate self-defense, right? (Well, unless you're the US.) Iran's nuclear enrichment program doesn't seem to rise to that level.

I imagine only the UN Security Council could authorize a military action against Iran that would be legal under international law barring Iranian aggression, right?

So, if Israel attacks Iran without immediate direct threat or without the imprimatur of the Security Council, that would be a violation of international law, right?

[tama]

1. Of course. nt

[loli phabay]

2. depends if israel can show the program is a threat

With the iranian regime talking about destroying israel if you lived in tel aviv you might take that as a legitimate threat. I see it as when the fuhrer talked about expanding the reich we should have took him at his word and even when he started we still sat back and didnt quite believe he meant it.

[Scootaloo]

3. Nice Rumsfeld impression. Oh! Can you do an Eddie Murphy? n/t

[Hutzpa]

6. You forgot this nice little tidbits

Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Did you hear the giggles from the press? Just sayin'

[denverbill]

15. Speaking of illegal invasions and occupations, Iran, and Israel.

One of these countries has launched an attack on 3 of it's neighbors, annexed their lands, treated the lands inhabitants as 2nd class citizens, launched 2 air attacks against countries it was at peace with, attacked an American naval ship in international waters killing 34 crewmen, launched 2 temporary invasions of it's northern neighbor, used assassination and kidnapping as part of it's foreign policy, and continues to build settlements on the illegally occupied land, in defiance of UN resolutions, and continually threaten another country with attack.

The other country supports terrorism, and issues threats against another country, but has never launched any wars or invasions.

I think before you compare Iran to Nazi Germany you had better examine which country's actions over the last 50 years has demonstrated a willingness to invade and subjugate it's neighbors, despite worldwide condemnation.

[hifiguy]

4. What makes you think Netanyahoo gives even a

hamster shit about international law? He never has and he never will.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. I don't think Netanyahu cares. But what about the international community?

Sorry, I have to laugh at myself. We all know "the international community" means the US, Britain, France, and Germany, especially when we want to attack somebody. It's funny, when we're hearing about "the international community," it doesn't sem to include, say, India, or Brazil, or Mexico, or South Africa, or China.

[former9thward]

5. No. You are creating "international law" where none exists.

Since 1945 when the UN was created nations have gone to war all of the time without UN approval or sanction. When you have the head of a country stating Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth then it is proper to stop them from acquiring the means to do so.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. By the same logic, Iran would be justified in attacking Israel?

Israel repeatedly threatens them with military attack.

Israel has weapons of mass destructions.

Does international law come down to might makes right?

[former9thward]

18. Israel has not said Iran should be eliminated.

They have only made threats in response to Iran's threats. Again I am not sure what "international law" is. It is a phrase everyone is fond of quoting but no one is ever specific about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Where you asleep when we attacked Iraq

om the pretension of WMDs?

And there is one difference, we do know, the International Atomic Agency has indeed pointed out that Iran is indeed enriching uranium and her leaders have used elimination language, so no, it would not be fully a violation of law.

(Then there is that pesky little thing about the two counties never signed a peace treaty after 1948, like when Israel took Iraq's nuclear facilities, the two counties were still technically at war)

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. No, I noted the American exemption.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. But you are also ignoriung that there is not even a cease fire

between the two countries, or that indeed, Iran has been using elimination language. Hell, just the other day, her leader said that Israel had no root in the middle east and they would be eliminated before the General Assembly. Tell me, how should the Israeli government take that comment? And if it was one, ok whatever, but here you have a state that has denied the existence of the holocaust, and that has indeed threatened, repeatedly, to engage in genocide.

Given Jewish History, indeed, I take this as a real threat. (And I usually stay way from this on DU since it is a verbotten subject)

Here is the difference. When Iran tries, let's assume they get the WMDs and the delivery devices, what do you think will be the Israeli Response? I am dreaming of a nuclear winter to be quite honest. And yes, a few cities in the ME will go poof under a nuclear cloud. Truly Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD, applies here.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Possibly but probably not...

Countries, under the UN charter, are allowed to defend themselves. Certainly Israel would state relevant portions of the UN charter to defend any action, just as the US and Britain defended the invasion of Iraq as an act of defense.

Though Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that from the point of view of the UN Charter the Iraq war was legal, his statement has no force in law because only the UN Security council can do that, and it did not and would not with both England and the US as permanent members.

The UN Security council could declare such a war illegal, but the U.S. has a veto in that counsil and it won't happen.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in accordance with Article 92, could be asked to advise on the illegality, but for it to have an effect under international law the UN Security council would have to pass a resolution, and with the U.S. as a permanent member that will not happen.

[cpwm17]

11. It would be highly illegal

Many of the brainwashed masses may support the aggression, including many here on DU. Iran has not demonstrated that it is a threat, let alone an imminent threat.

It isn't a coincidence that the nations that are threatening Iran with aggressive war are the world's most aggressive war-mongering nations.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. There really isn't substantive and enforceable international law

It is a bad fiction and always will be without substantive enforcement powers.

[Bandit]

16. "The Bush* Doctrine"

I am sure that is what they would use for justification....Our War Criminals are living high on the hog with no worries what-so-ever about accountability

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. I'm not sure why you have the touching idea that Israel cares much for international law

the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the building of settlements, are also violations of international law.