Attacking Iran Would Be Illegal, But Iran Hawks Don't Care
Daniel Larison - The American Conservative
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/attacking-iran-would-be-illegal-but-iran-hawks-dont-care/
... Iran hawks such as [Wisconsin Sen. Ron] Johnson support
preventive war against Iran because they are excessively afraid that
Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. Because of that fear,
they have an entirely unreasonable expectation that those weapons will
pose such an intolerable threat to the U.S. and/or Israel that it has
to be eliminated by force in advance ... In short, Iran hawks probably
won't admit the illegality of an attack on Iran, but if they are forced
to admit it they will dismiss it as irrelevant. International law
matters to these hawks only insofar as it can be used to justify U.S.
actions against other states, and when it gets in the way of this they
will ignore it and run roughshod over it. We know this because this is
how they have treated international law in every debate over military
action over the last two decades.
Would a U.S. Strike Against Iran Actually Work?
James Fallows - The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/please-read-jeffrey-goldbergs-netanyahu-analysisand-this-other-one-too/384888/... The premise of the article was to conduct a war game-style exercise to examine the feasibility and effects of an American preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The upshot of the exercise was that such a strike could not possibly "work." Set aside questions of whether a bombing raid would be "necessary" or "just." From a strictly military point of view, according to the defense-world authorities who took part in our war game, the strike would almost certainly be a counterproductive failure. It could not put more than a temporary damper on Iran's capacities and ambitions ...
No comments:
Post a Comment