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.
However, let’s for a moment accept that the U.S.’ and Israel’s claims that the use of force against Iran is justified are accurate. In other words, that the threat posed by Iran to Israel and United States satisfies the conditions required to justify preemptive use of force. The point of the thought experiment is this: if we accept such a ludicrous standard governing the use of force, we cannot help but conclude that Iran has a right to send planes to bomb Jerusalem and Washington tomorrow.
The case for attacking Iran essentially rests on two main contentions: that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that, once it has them, it will use them against Israel (either directly or through Hizbullah). I will not discuss the accuracy of the first assertion here; suffice to say that both the CIA and the IAEA (.pdf) disagree. In any event, even if we accept that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that would not qualify for a preemptive strike, even under the ridiculous standards of Israel and the United States. If it did, we would be forced to conclude that the majority of the states on the planet (including Iran) have a right to attack America, Israel, France, Britain, India and the other members of the `nuclear club’.
No; what’s important is the second assertion – that, should Iran develop nuclear weapons capacity, it would use it against Israel. This is a very serious accusation and so requires plenty of evidence to back it up. The standard of evidence required is especially high because the idea that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear state is so counter-intuitive; states don’t commit suicide. In reality, the only `evidence’ used to suggest that Iran would use a nuclear weapon is a few statements by President Ahmadinejad to the effect that the `Zionist regime’ will be destroyed. Therefore, by this standard, all we have to do to show that Iran would be justified in sending fighter jets to bomb Washington and Jerusalem is provide stronger evidence than a few abstract statements by a populist President who has no authority of matters of war or nuclear policy of a country that hasn’t the ability to carry out those threats even if they were sincere that Israel and the U.S. pose a real threat to Iran.
That shouldn’t be too hard to do. Israeli politicians (who most definitely do have authority over such matters) have been openly saying for months that, if dialogue fails to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment, Israel will not hesitate to use force. Statements by Israeli officials branding [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804551.html a] nuclear Iran as “intolerable” and sanctioning the use of force in order to prevent one developing are numerous and sincere. Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh has been particularly prominent, declaring that the Iranian nuclear programme must be stopped “at all costs”, noting further that although military action is a “last resort”, the “last resort is sometimes the only resort”. Moreover, unlike Iran, Israel has the ability to carry out its threats and, unlike Iran, which has not attacked a country outside its border for over 200 years, Israel has repeatedly shown a willingness to use aggressive force to further its strategic objectives.
Likewise, the U.S. has made it clear that it has no objection in principle to a military strike on Iran. For example, President Bush recently declared that he would “understand” if Israel chose to attack Iran, and has refused to rule out military action, stating that “all options are on the table.” Meanwhile John Bolton, then U.S. ambassador to the UN, promised Iran “painful and tangible consequences” if it failed to halt enrichment.
But the threat posed by the U.S. and Israel has gone far beyond mere rhetoric. As I wrote in a previous post:
In September the U.S. started to plan the deployment of a major “strike group” of battleships to the Persian Gulf. In October, the U.S. led a naval war game off the Iranian coast intended to display to Iran both military might and aggressive intent, whilst a couple of days ago newspapers reported that both Britain and the U.S. are sending additional warships and fighter planes to the Gulf. The message couldn’t be clearer: if the sanctions don’t stop you, our military will.
Today, the Sunday Times reports that Israel is planning a nuclear strike on Iran. According to the Times, two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian nuclear facility using `tactical’ nuclear weapons (or “bunker busters”). According to one of the Times‘ sources inside the Israeli military,
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished”.
Indeed, Israeli pilots have already flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the journey to Iran, for which three possible routes have already been mapped out.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry has denied the report, claiming,
“The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council resolution 1737. If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably.”
Except…that isn’t really a denial, is it? The question is: what if diplomacy doesn’t succeed? Olmert has refused to comment on the story, as has Avigdor Lieberman, the minister in charge of the Iranian ‘strategic threat’. Their silence speaks volumes.
In America, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed once again that the use of force against Iran remains an option. “I’ve not ruled that out,” he said. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Ze’ev Schiff (chief military correspondent for Ha’aretz) reports that, despite pursuing diplomatic solutions to end the crisis, Israel has `nonetheless continued to relentlessly develop its military options’.
In short, Israel and the U.S. have not only talked about attacking Iran (although they have certainly done that; they have already started to translate those verbal threats into action on the ground. It cannot be seriously doubted that Israel and the U.S. pose a far greater threat to Iran than vice versa. Iranian citizens have far more justification to feel afraid than their Israeli and American counterparts. When Ephraim Sneh declares that Israel will stop Iran’s nuclear programme “at all costs”, Iranians know that the “costs” could well be their lives.
I am not here advocating an Iranian `preemptive’ strike on Israel or the U.S. But those who argue for a U.S./Israeli first-strike on Iran should be, at least if they have even a modicum of respect for the basic moral principle of universality (that we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones – to paraphrase Noam Chomsky). Those that don’t – at last count, all of them – should not be taken seriously.
Cross-posted at The Heathlander