|
Conservative Institute Debates Israeli Attack on Iran |
|
Written by Lloyd Chebaclo
|
|
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 |
|
 Washington, DC- "The use of force is required to stop Iran's ongoing nuclear program because the other options have failed, are failing, and will fail," John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said last Friday as part of a briefing entitled "Should Israel Attack Iran?" Fellow AEI pundit Michael Rubin decried what he calls the "politics of procrastination" by adding "diplomacy isn't a strategy, it's a tactic."
Although Bolton believes regime change in Iran would ultimately be ideal, he argued that a military strike must be authorized in order to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from inciting an arms race across the region. Rubin acknowledged the costs of an attack and that it would likely rally the people around the Iranian government, in spite of the recent clampdown and human rights abuses.
Bolton argued that there have been talks with Iran for the past seven years and asked "when will there be an exit strategy for failed diplomacy?"
Martin Indyk of the Brookings institution, countered that what occurred over the past seven years was a "different kind of diplomacy" from the Obama administration's engagement of Iran. While force should never be taken off the table, "diplomacy should never be taken off the table either," he said.
Bolton also criticized the current draft nuclear deal for third party enrichment of the majority of Iran's low enriched uranium. Returning the uranium as fuel rods will not slow down nuclear weapons progress significantly, he argued.
He criticized the Obama administration's approach as more of the same as under the Bush administration, citing the first three "watered-down" U.N. Security Council resolutions as ineffective.
Based on the criteria for self-defense laid out under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, panelists agreed that Israel has no grounds to attack Iran under current international law.
Edwin D. Williamson of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP contended that there may be a need to "refashion" international law with respect to justifying some form of pre-emptive action when dealing with weapons of mass destruction. He argued that the nature of WMDs is such that waiting to take action until one is fully developed elevates the collateral damage associated with destroying a functioning nuclear facility, potentially eliminating the military option from consideration. Meanwhile, Israel could remain at risk of what it views as an existential threat.
Changing international law to justify such pre-emptive attack has been criticized in the past for creating a dangerous new precedent, a slippery slope for justifying unilateral military aggression. He referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Israeli attack on Osirak and on Syrian nuclear facilities as examples in customary international law justifying pre-emptive actions against WMDs.
If Israel did attack, "Israel would be in uncharted territory at best," Williamson conceded.
|
