|
No Legitimate Justification for
War with Iran:
By Scott Ritter
Given the complexities of the modern world, and the
uncertainties inherent in such, it is prudent for any nation
possessing global reach and ambition to be prepared to defend
its legitimate interests through the use of military force. The
geographic reality of Iran’s physical location vis-à-vis the
Straight of Hormuz, and the dire economic consequences that
would accrue should Middle Eastern oil supplies become choked
off through any closure or lengthy disruption of shipping
through the Straight of Hormuz, dictate that the United States
plan for the possible deployment and employment of its military
to secure this strategic shipping lane.
But there is a
far cry from preparing for the possibility
of conflict, and planning for the
implementation of pre-emptive military
action designed to eliminate capabilities
not forbidden under international law (such
as Iran’s nuclear energy program) or
facilitate regime change in a sovereign
state. The actions underway by the US
military, operating under the aegis of its
civilian leadership, are indicative of the
former, not the latter, and as such can be
categorized as undesirable on the part of
those who embrace the rule of law set forth
by the
Constitution of the United States and,
in related fashion (one only needs to read
Article 6 of the Constitution) the Charter
of the United Nations.
The United States should only
consider the use of military force as representing a viable
option once it has exhausted every venue short of war to resolve
an identified national security problem. This must include
seeking authority for such a military strike in accordance with
international law as set forth under the Charter of the United
Nations, as well as carrying out the coordination between the
executive and legislative branches mandated by the U.S.
Constitution. In the case of imminent danger to national
security, decisive action would of course need to be taken,
hence the need for updated military contingency planning.
However, there is simply nothing transpiring in Iran today that
constitutes categorization as an imminent threat to the national
security of the United States, and as such nothing about the
Iranian situation can be interpreted as providing justification
for any accelerated military action that seeks to circumvent due
process.
However, the reality is that the United States continues to plan
to initiate and sustain a military strike against Iran. The
Executive Branch of the U.S. government has successfully
manipulated the Congress of the United States to the point that,
through two War Powers resolutions (one issued in September
2001, the other in October 2002), there no longer remain any
Constitutional remedies to the problem of unprovoked unilateral
military action by a Unitary Executive which increasingly
positions itself to operate above the law and beyond legislative
oversight.
In the environment of post-September 11, 2001 America the
executive branch of government has successfully extricated
itself from legitimate oversight by claiming to be acting in the
interests of homeland security. The resultant “Global War on
Terror” has served as a cover for actions which are more about
implementing far-reaching global dominance per the National
Security Strategy of the United States (initially promulgated in
September 2002, and recently updated in March 2006). Policies of
regime change in Iraq were implemented under the umbrella of
reaction to the terror attacks of 2001, although Iraq was not
linked in any way to that horrific event, or the perpetrators of
that event. In the same way, the U.S. government today seeks to
pursue similar policies of destabilization and
regime-termination in Iran making similar rhetorical linkage,
although the factual record clearly demonstrates Iran’s absolute
lack of involvement in either the September 11, 2001 attack or
the organization, al-Qaeda, which carried it out.
Any military action on the part of the United States against
Iran, lacking as it would be in justification and legal
authority, would ultimately fail to achieve any objectives that
could be construed as improving either the regional security
posture of the Middle East, or the national security environment
of the United States. In fact, the exact opposite situation
would arise, with the Middle East sinking into a morass of
conflict the consequences of which would detrimentally impact
the global energy markets. Since the ostensible justification
for any strike against Iran by the United States is illusory,
there could be no real security benefit derived from a strike,
in the same way that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not
increase the security of the world by eliminating WMD
stockpiles, since those stockpiles did not exist.
Iran today is a nation suffering under the combined effects of
decades of sanctions, conflict and governmental mismanagement.
There is a growing recognition inside Iran, reaching to the
highest levels of government that something needs to be done to
effect a change in course for the Islamic Republic. Iran has
long since ceased engaging in the kind of irresponsible
international adventurism which characterized its export of the
Islamic Revolution. Iran’s nuclear program, declared as being
exclusively for energy use, has become an impediment towards the
normalization of relations with the world, and Iran would be
willing to negotiate it away if the appropriate diplomatic
environment could be created, especially vis-à-vis the United
States. Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah in Lebanon could
likewise be moderated through genuine diplomatic engagement
which sought a resolution to the crisis in southern Lebanon in a
manner which respected the sovereign will of the citizens of
south Lebanon.
The bottom line is that while one may be able to articulate
justification for prudent military contingency planning in the
Middle East inclusive of an Iranian scenario (I myself
participated in such planning in the mid-1980’s), there must be
a distinction between planning and implementation.
Implementation of military action should only come in the face
of an identified viable threat, authorized by proper authorities
in accordance with due process set forth by legal mandate, and
then only when all venues short of conflict have been exhausted
in seeking a resolution to the situation. None of these
prerequisites for conflict have been met in the case of the
current state of affairs between Iran and the United States.
Simply put, there is no justification whatsoever for the United
States to be planning for the implementation of a pre-emptive
war of aggression against Iran. If we are to have learned
anything from history, it is that such pre-emptive wars
generally tend to lead to defeat (Iraq, 2003) and are recognized
by international law as constituting war crimes as we saw at
Nurnberg in 1945.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
