The U.S. and Israel have long presented their option to attack Iran as one among many policy choices to halt Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. The fact that their own intelligence concludes such a program doesn’t exist actually effects the legitimacy of a military strike, though. As it turns out, the U.S. and Israel don’t have that option – at least as far as international law is concerned. Many an anti-Western dictator has been declared wanted and tried by international criminal courts for violating international law, while the U.S. and Israel publicly contemplate and threaten such criminality with impunity.
Read about the illegality of attacking Iran at the Guardian.
So what is new? The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were viiolations of international law. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are in violationn of international law. What makes you think that Israel and now the USA care one hoot about international law.
Gosh, remember Valerie Plame? CIA cute asset, working the Iran nuclear issue? Got outted by the Bushco boys? Yeah, I'm curious to know if things might be different IF the lawless schmucks working for the Bushco had left well enough alone.
And why do you think they did that? For no reason? Or were they instructed to do so by their zionist paymasters in order to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran?
Remember PNAC? After Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran was on the list of countries to attack. So far they are on schedule.
An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran would a criminal act of aggression. Why? Well, uh . . . you reckon it's because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, nor is it a threat to the United States?! . . .
Very true but Iran is blocking Israel invasion of Lebanon. Israel wasted its natural resources especially water. No one planned on a major drought and It has crushed Israel. As long as the fighter of lebanon have a source of resupply the IDF will not attack. The IDF has have a lot of loses in every failed invasion in the past Israel has a very powerful military which just is not big enough to really occupy a nation. Look at the actions to expel the arabs on the land they took in the 1967 war of aggression. Look at the problem with the pretty much unarmed people of Gaza. Iran has to go or Israel cannot create an empire. Did God not give the Israel Asia?
Does anyone have Bibi's lawyer's #? E-mail address? I'm sure when Bibi is notified he risks tarnishing Israel's impeccable International 'image' and 'reputation' by potentially violating so called "International Law", he will change course immediately…
Yes, Israeli politicians are always so careful not to violate any laws, international or otherwise.
Although it is so, the question remains if US in terms of its “political and economic obligations" toward Israel would disregard such international law. US has done so in the past, in regard to every Middle Eastern war US have taken the Israel side no matter what, in the matter of Iraq war US even been lying about many if not all the issues for just to have a war with Iraq. Look, US and EU since 1990s and Balkan wars, after dividing Yugoslavia, which US and NATO consider it a successes are practicing every legal channels to continue with war against other nations, there are attorneys hired by Bush regimes, the state departments and etc. getting paid millions in dollars just to find a way in torturing or having a next war.
US after Vietnam war have realized that it cannot conquer the world alone and that US cannot defeat a nation that is capable of defending itself. So they brought NATO – EU – England which have the same agendas as US militarism regime have. These NATO allies would like to share the “profit, whatever it might be”, with US in dividing the world among themselves. For that purpose, they Need a legal document signed by the UN security Consuls to go to war, that is where UN has been used as a tool since 1990s if not before. Here, some countries, mostly US allies as Saudis, UAE, Turkey, Jordan England and others’ are the contributors to these wars, all these countries have some kind of political and or economic connections.
So the question is not about the international law, the law is there and governments, especially the democratic ones, knows about it, the question of how and from where such law can be obtained is the question. Many of the US senators are pointing at US constitutions as the law of the land, if not the law of the world, that is to say when it fits and when is good for them, constituting that international law is not valid as long as US constitution exist, which is one of the reasons for US being at war for last 60 years with almost every nation, however, non of these countries have or about or even had the capability to attack USA, which makes these senators argument as a baseless argument, a fascistic argument, undemocratic argument, nationalistic argument but above all a militarization of the country and the world by US and NATO. So its time for NATO to go, there is no communism in Russia, NATO was built as a defense mechanism in case of USSR attacking Europe.
Pleasure is emotional and temporary — Happiness is mental and permanent
But, our little planet is ruled by force, Empire USA rules supreme by deadly force, which means that international law is ours to manipulate, control, create and abolish.
Enjoy it while the temporary pleasure lasts, gentlemen, for permanent happiness is not what brutal imperialism is all about.
Pleasure gratifies emotions — Happiness enriches the mind
But, our little planet is ruled by force, Empire USA rules supreme by deadly force, which means that international law is ours to manipulate, control, create and abolish.
Enjoy it while the temporary pleasure lasts, gentlemen, for permanent happiness is not what brutal imperialism is all about.
"The fact that their own intelligence concludes such a program doesn’t exist actually effects the legitimacy of a military strike, though."
Even if Iran started building a nuke, would international law grant the Western powers a casus belli? IANAL but that seems doubtful.
I do not believe in international law as I do not believe in the United Nations. Libya was a member of the United Nations and Libya clearly should not have been attacked. The only thing stopping the invasion of Iran is the fact that Iran is not a push over. Iran has understood that Israel was going to attack. Look at the situation in the past between Japan and the USA. In the 1922 USA budget the put in a few bucks to get the USA marines money to train for the "coming war with japan". The day of the attack on Pearl Habor might have been an unknown but the attack was clearly expected. Iran knows they will be attack and they will respond.
The US government proved, after the illegal invasion of Iraq that they were capable, and relatively successful – no one has been prosecuted (I used to add "yet" but finally realize that it will never happen). They proved that they can rewrite history well enough that the rest of the world turns it's eyes and moves on down the road. As long as this is the way the wind blows, nothing will change and the US will do it again, and again – until someone goes to jail.
And I don't expect to live to see that happen.
DUH!
One could write pages as to WHY it would be illegal under International law to attack Iran, even the Psuedo excuse that they are using to place sanctions on Iran is under international law ILLEGAL, the IAEA actually reports to the General assembly not the Security council, and Iran is in compliance with ALL the rules of the IAEA, every one of them, The United States ironically is not by threatening a NPT state, with sanctions because of their legal Nuclear activities.____The senators in the US have a problem in that Under the Constitution of the United States when Congress ratifies a treaty by 2/3 of the Congress that treaty has similar standing as if it was part of the Constitutional law of the United States. Remember when Bush took the Gitmo Prisoners Geneva rights from them the SuprememCourt ruled he couldnt because of Geneva Article 3, the Treaty overuled him, the facts are these treaties including the United Nations Treaty actually over ride Congressional law, but it is impossible to get a matter before the Supreme Court and to get it ruled on as a matter of law.