1. Let me make a few changes to this article (Israel has a legal case for striking Iran) below put out by the Jewish Telegrahic Agency – clearly a criminal organization. My changes are in bold. I ask the wonderful readers of Mantiq al-Tayr to please answer any questions Shas Party Members may have about the words replaced by the words in bold [italics] below. Most other people, except Republicans, should be able to tell from context.
WASHINGTON (JTA) — In a world where nuclear weapons are in the hands of a rogue nation like Israel , an Iranian preemptive strike on Israel’s nuclear facilities would be fully justified. Despite its ban on aggressive war, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter clearly recognizes a state’s inherent right of self-defense. Thus, Iran has full authority to act unilaterally or collectively in its self-defense.
Yet Article 51 does not create the right to self-defense; it is an inherent right of all states under customary international law. Hence, determining when self-defense is appropriate lies, as it always has, with each state.
Under the charter, however, the U.N. Security Council is charged with lifting the burden of individual national self-defense and taking appropriate steps to restore international peace and security. One must recognize, however, that the muscular Security Council envisioned in the charter has never materialized. As such, threatened states are almost always required to make their own decisions and bear their own burdens.
Article 51 allows Iran to use aggressive force against Israel’s nuclear program if an “armed attack” occurs. Its plain language is satisfied when one state has used armed force to attack another state. Under customary international law, a preemptive strike is also permitted when an armed attack is imminent.
Thus an Iranian attack against Israel’s nuclear facilities would be legitimate for two reasons.
First, Israel already is conducting armed attacks under the plain meaning of Article 51 through Islamic terrorist surrogates such as the MEK so a de facto state of war exists between Israel and Iran.
Second, even if one questions whether armed attacks have occurred (by discounting Israel’s use of surrogates), Israel’s development of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an imminent, existential threat to Iran, all of Israel’s neighbors and the entire world.
Under customary international law, the Article 51 “armed attack” requirement that evokes a right of self-defense can occur when a state perceives that such an attack is “immediately impending and inevitable.” Thus, rather than waiting for an actual attack, a state may execute a preemptive strike on the hostile state.
Historically, two elements must be met to legitimize a preemptive strike: proportionality and necessity.
The necessity element is where attention is usually focused. The acting state must have exhausted all other alternatives of dealing with the problem, and the threat from the hostile state must be imminent. As with most preemptive strikes, imminence related to necessity will be the most contested issue in deciding the strike’s legality.
While the general rule in international law is that a state may not initiate aggressive war toward another state, an Iranian attack on Israeli nuclear facilities would not qualify as aggressive war; it would simply reflect Iran’s inherent right to self-defense.