This week’s proclamations from President Barack Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Iran’s budding nuclear ambitions has led to fears that the war of words between Iran and the rest of the world may metamorphosize into armed conflict, most likely sparked by a pre-emptive strike. In the lead up to next week’s meeting between President Obama and PM Netanyahu, the latter appeared to seek the reassurance and support of the US in tackling the problem that is Iran.
Iran buying time?
One recalls that, in what appeared at the time as an attempt to cool tensions, the Tehran government wrote to Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy head in February promising “new initiatives” in its attempts to negotiate its way out of this political impasse. To date however, the EU has failed to respond to the Iranian olive branch which involves a return to the negotiating table which both parties have not sat at since negotiations stalled last year. This recent shift in position by Iran is undermined by last week’s report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which revealed that Iran is significantly stepping up its uranium enrichment arsenal.
Israel fears that the recent overture offered by Iran is merely a ploy to buy time in order to complete its enrichment programme. Speaking last week whilst in the company of the Canadian PM, Stephen Harper, himself a staunch Israel ally, PM Netanyahu warned the west against falling “into this trap”. Netanyahu propounded “it could do again what it has done before; it could pursue or exploit the talks as they’ve done in the past to deceive and delay so that they can continue to advance their nuclear programme and get to the nuclear finish line by running up the clock, so to speak.”
US backing for a pre-emptive strike?
Netanyahu appears to have received the backing he has sought from President Obama. In an interview with Atlantic magazine, Obama stated “I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognise that when the US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, we mean what we say.” He added: “all options are on the table…it includes a military component. And I think people understand that”. Obama however slightly put the breaks on any suggestions that it supports a full scale pre-emptive strike in asserting that he felt it unwise for Israel to go ahead with any attack which may enhance the ‘victim status’ position which Iran has played on during the course of this long running dispute.
Any hopes of roundtable talks?
Chances of a resolution by negotiation and diplomacy are gradually dissipating by the day. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 72, at the end of last month declared that the country would “impose its own threats at the right time” in response to armed conflict or war. The Ayatollah has used the country’s recent elections to bolster his credibility and to assure his people that he will preserve their security against “the arrogant powers bullying us to maintain their prestige.” Nevertheless, the credibility of the aforementioned elections will come under some scrutiny as the two main opposition leaders, Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi were excluded from the process as they are currently under house arrest. It is no exaggeration to state that the Ayatollah is even more of a hard line figure than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is famed for his poisonous rhetoric against Israel and the west. This is best demonstrated by events of 2009 when Ahmadinejad appeared to favour a compromise solution involving nuclear fuel swap; an idea which was extinguished almost immediately by the Ayatollah.
Needless to say, Iran has no intention of acceding to the pre-conditions favoured by Israel prior to entering any negotiations. The demands include (a) the dismantling of the underground nuclear facility near the city of Qom; (b) to stop uranium enrichment; and (c) to remove all uranium enriched above 3.5 percent from the country (the 3.5 percent level is usually required to power nuclear energy plants). Therefore the spectre of pre-emptive strike looms large although Israel and the US, if the latter is co-opted into a potential military mission, risk violating the UN Charter against the use of force in doing so.
The legality of pre-emptive strikes
Article 51 of the Charter permits the use of force by a State only when it has suffered an ‘armed attack’ against it. This would therefore mean that Israel can only legally launch an attack against Iran only, and only if it has been attacked by Iran. It would be right to argue that in drafting the Charter, its drafters did not anticipate a world in which many nations would have access to nuclear weaponry. The age of nuclear weaponry may have made the Charter redundant in that the victim State stands the risk of being annihilated or severely handicapped if it stands back and allows an initial nuclear attack to be launched by the ‘aggressor state’. This will be the argument forwarded by the Israeli government.
Where do we go from here?
Global affairs pundits, scholars of international law and the International Court of Justice have not provided the clarity sought by most. However the present writer favours the interpretation propounded by the renowned scholar, Yoram Dinstein, in his seminal volume, War, Aggression and Self-Defence. In my opinion he successfully argues that the right to self-defence can be invoked in response to an armed attack as soon as it becomes evident to the victim State (on the basis of hard intelligence available) that the attack is in the process of being mounted. In his opinion, under Article 51, there is no need for the victim State to wait for bombs to fall as it is entitled to intercept the armed attack with a view to blunting its edge.
If this view is accepted as customary international law, then it would appear that Israel and/or the US can legally, based on the evidence of the IAEA as well as the Natanz and Qom nuclear facilities, act pre-emptively without fear of breaching international law. However, one hopes that common sense will prevail before matters escalate any further. Western sanctions have already had a debilitating effect on the Iranian economy with evidence of spiralling inflation and rising food and fuel costs. The worsening economic crisis may lead Iran back to the negotiating table like it has with North Korea, or in the alternative make the Ayatollah even more resolute. What is however certain is that the future will certainly become clearer after next Monday’s meeting between the leaders of Israel and the US.
