11 Feb More on Action Against Iran
Bruce Ackerman has these thoughts, via FP Passport. I can’t see Bush going to Congress to get permission to lob some cruise missiles against critical sites. Contrary to Ackerman’s view (representative of the old congressional power purists), I don’t think Bush would be constitutionally required to do so, either, given the long practice of unilateral military action by Presidents in cases not involving a risk of serious casualties or protracted conflict.
On the international law side, David Bosco logs in with this, also from FP. The case here against legality would be much stronger than on the constitutional question, at least to the extent the claim were one of preemptive self-defense (even if the US could piggyback on Israel’s claim, as Bosco suggests, it would be a weak basis for an attack). Now the Administration seems to be laying the groundwork for a more direct self-defense justification, relating to weapons used in Iraq originating in Iran. That would be a stronger basis for some sort of limited action, but wouldn’t seem to justify taking out facilities relating to nuclear weapons development.
Just because something’s inconsistent with IL doesn’t stop it from happening, of course. At the same time, I think there would be consequences to US action against Iran if it didn’t enjoy some form of international authorization, in the way of just digging our hole even deeper.
None of this is to say that such action makes any sense. I continue to be amazed that Bush is even considering opening up another front. Perhaps this is his Cambodia. He can’t possibly think that it will provide a helpful distraction to the disaster in Iraq, can he?
I don’t think Bush will really need formal Congressional support to launch cruise missiles (See Clinton’s dubiously legal strike on Sudan) however it would be extremely unwise to do so without tacit consent.
That’s more of a strategic matter than a legal matter. I doubt Bush plans to commit ground troops to Iran. A massive aerial and naval bombardment would be more likely. Iran’s government is barely solvent, and the destruction of important assets would probably lead to a collapse in social services and function, possibly even leading to civil war and military mutiny.
Incinerating both their oil fields and pipelines and the nuclear facilities would plunge the country into both darkness and poverty. However, I’m unsure what kind of legal justification could be concocted to attack those rather unrelated assets (short of an actual declaration of war.)
Whether that would be an improvement (from the US point of view) or not is debatable.
Matthew:
I just saw your comment here. I have replied to some of these points in my reply to your comment to my post on Odom’s op-ed.
>>>I continue to be amazed that Bush is even considering opening up another front. Perhaps this is his Cambodia. He can’t possibly think that it will provide a helpful distraction to the disaster in Iraq, can he?<< The fact that Iranian-backed forces, with apparent high-level blessing, are killing our troops doesn’t matter to you apparently.
In light of such further recent info, as that below, I’m curious a to what Professor Spiro would recommend, or is he stuck in the ’60’s with Vietnam?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009156.php
Iranian Smoking Guns Found … Literally
The Telegraph reports this morning that rifles imported from Austria by Iran have surfaced among insurgents in Iraq. Steyr-Mannlicher exported 800 of its high-powered HS50 models, capable of piercing body armor, to the National Iranian Police Association for their anti-narcotics efforts:
This appears to aubstantiate the findings of the Department of Defense, presented this weekend, that Iran has actively supplied weapons to the Iraqi insurgencies, and that those weapons have killed American troops. The DoD focused on the EFPs, explosive devices that can destroy vehicular armor, and counted 170 American deaths from the super-IEDs. The HS50s have also killed Americans, and seem designed to do so. The first American to die from the HS50 was shot 45 days after the Iranian police received their shipment.
US forces have captured over a hundred of the HS50s from the Iranian police shipment. That amounts to over 12% of the total number of rifles imported by Iran to fight drug dealers, a dodge that has grown more threadbare ever since the invasion of Iraq. The Iranians have not claimed — yet — that they managed to lose one-eighth of all the new rifles intended for their police, and the Iranian government was clearly the recipient of the arms. In fact, Austria defended the sale on that very point.
Pardon the pun, but this is literally the smoking gun. We can trace these weapons from its manufacturer directly to the Iranian government. The quantity in which they have been found in insurgent bases precludes any explanation that a few just got mislaid; they obviously have been transferred from an Iranian state organization to the terrorists in Iraq. It’s the clearest evidence of Iranian involvement in attacks on Americans. The involvement of the mullahcracy is undeniable, and it is a direct retort to those who keep claiming that Iran has no stake in Iraqi instability.
Let us assume that Iran is arming some of the Shia insurgents, the Americans in Iraq would no doubt assert a self-defense rationale. Is anyone concerned as to the proportionality of the American response (now that there are two carrier groups if I remember right coming into the Persian Gulf)? If the US were to raze Tehran – is that OK – or wouldn’t that amount to a kind of collective reprisal? Would a US protest be enough? How about if the US supplies dissident groups in Iran as a proportionate response with the same type of weaponry. Is that enough? Note I am in a self-defense not pre-emptive self-defense vision here. Also, should we do something to the Austrians?
Best,
Ben
I hate to whine about pseudonyms, but would it be possible to refrain from using the name of a rather famous (and still living) person to post under? I somehow doubt Mr. Blix is either posting on OpinioJuris or that his political views have taken a sudden turn rightward.
From Mr. Davis’ post:
Is anyone concerned as to the proportionality of the American response (now that there are two carrier groups if I remember right coming into the Persian Gulf)?
I am not, for reasons I espoused in previous debates on this website. However, let’s consider it for the point of argument.
If the US were to raze Tehran – is that OK – or wouldn’t that amount to a kind of collective reprisal?
I think it would be relatively difficult to raze Tehran without violating prohibitions against targets without a military use, unless the military plans on dropping hydrogen bombs on every airport and bridge.
Also, should we do something to the Austrians?
Probably not. All of Europe (especially the French) sell weapons to our erstwhile enemies. It doesn’t appear in this case the Austrians expected the weapons to be used against the US troops.
Prof Spirow states:
Now the Administration seems to be laying the groundwork for a more direct self-defense justification, relating to weapons used in Iraq originating in Iran. That would be a stronger basis for some sort of limited action,….
Probably I miss a step in this reasoning, but I fail to see how retaliation against Iran for an attack on US troops IN IRAQ could be considered self-defense by the US.
When we change the names of the parties, this would mean that when US troops attack Iran troops in Iraq, Iran would be justified to bomb the US in self-defense. To me, this is clearly nonsense – although US presence in Iraq is obviously much more threatening to Iran than Iran presence in Iraq is to the US homeland.