As the UN convened earlier this week, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ignored UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's request to keep words civil. The jabs ranged from asserting that Israel has "no roots" in the Middle East to threatening Israel's elimination. Israel's PM Netanyahu has mentioned capability of a strike against Iran's nuclear sites. However, despite all the incendiary rhetoric, there may still be hope for diplomacy. Ahmadinejad spoke earlier today in the UN General Assembly on Iran's "global vision and welcomes any effort intended to provide and promote peace, stability and tranquility" in the world.
Is this consistent language?
It will be interesting to see whether things cool off or heat up in the near future. Considering our class discussions, what do you think the future holds for these nations? What role does the US play? What role should the US play?
- India.
UPDATE - (Prof. Martin) - Aside from the rhetoric, and what the statements suggest the likely course of action may be (which is interesting and of some significance), consider the legal issues implicated by this situation. Israel has been applying increasing pressure on the U.S. to commit to a use of military force in the event that certain 'red-lines' are crossed by Iran in the development of its uranium enrichment program. Would such a use of force be lawful? Is the threat of such a use of force lawful? if not, why not? What is Iran's recourse in the event that such a use of force would not be lawful? Consider these issues when we come to examine the law on the use of force.
Israel is likely concerned that Iran is preparing to point its nuclear weapon directly at the Jewish State. Since (allegedly) Israel does not have nuclear weapon to use in self defense, it makes sense that they are looking to their premier ally to get involved on their behalf. The US will have to go beyond the rhetorical argument that "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US" and seek UN (not mandatory), and congressional approval on a legal basis. In order to justify its involvement the US will likely have to argue that the threat of Iran using any nuclear weapons they develop is imminent. My question is what is the threshold for "imminent" threat in the international community? In order to have our allies support will we have to show that we reasonably believed Iran was enriching, or evidence that they were actually enriching and planning to attack ?
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed, thought Israel does not officially confirm that it has nuclear weapons, it is the conventional wisdom that Israel does in fact possess, and deploys, nuclear weapons.
DeleteWould an Israeli attack aimed at Iran's nuclear program actually be counter-productive, in that it would rouse sympathy for Iran and make it easier for the Iranian government to acquire the materials needed to manufacture nuclear weapons? Many states and scholars are already skeptical of Israel's claim that an attack on Iran's nuclear program is necessary for its self-defense. Could an international consensus that such a strike would only embolden Iran further erode support for Israel's position?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/how-to-help-iran-build-a-bomb.html?ref=world
"Providing a legal basis to attack Iran"
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post WP Opinions
By Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III, Published: September 27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/providing-a-legal-basis-to-attack-iran/2012/09/27/e30e87a4-043b-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html