Amidst reports that Great Britain has denied the US military use of important British bases for an assault against Iran, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters on Friday that whenever the DOD considers military action “we do it within the legal confines…of this country.” The US has been contemplating military action against Iran’s nuclear program since at least 2006, but the legality of a unilateral attack has evidently not been a major consideration in Washington. It should be, as should the likely tactical complications of British (and potentially broader) non-cooperation.
In dramatic contrast to apparent US assumptions of legality concerning preventative military action against Iran is the statement the Guardian obtained from a UK government source that “’The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran.’” In fact, reportedly based on legal advice from the UK’s attorney general, the UK has denied the US use of important British bases on Ascension Island, Cyprus, and Diego Garcia. The UK position should be of legal interest in Washington because Great Britain would not be the attacking nation, merely a government assisting the attacker. If UK legal instincts are so extraordinarily cautious about even passively aiding an attacker, one wonders how the US, in the role of the attacker, could muster such confidence about being on legal solid ground.
Most of all US resort to force over the past 20-odd years has been in response to direct attacks on the United States or US interests (post-9/11 anti-terrorist military action aimed against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, cruise missile attacks against al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan in response to the East Africa embassy bombings and the attack against the USS Cole, etc.). Even with the iffy — and later debunked — Bush Administration case for war against Iraq, the US maintained that by sustaining a supposed arsenal of WMD, Iraq was in violation of international law tied to red lines laid down in UNSC resolutions linked to Chapter VII enforcement (use of force) concerning very specific requirements levied on Iraq in the immediate wake of the 1991 Gulf War.
So, even in an alleged worst case scenario in which, for sake of argument, Iran was believed to be in the midst of developing nuclear weapons that it planned to meld to an enhanced ballistic missile capability, that in and of itself would not constitute a direct attack on the US (out of range) or US interests (American bases or embassies in the Middle East/South Asia region). Indeed, the presumed threat posed by any such Iranian capabilities primarily would be against US regional allies such as Israel, most notably, and potentially others such as the GCC states, Turkey and so on. It has, however, not been historic US policy to launch preventative attacks against assumed — not active — threats against its allies.
On another, tactical level, the reported UK refusal of basing cooperation could be quite significant with respect to any US attack against Iran (even more so if other key US NATO allies were to follow suit). The potential loss of transit, staging, refueling and basing rights through the UK, Cyprus and particularly the basing of US heavy bombers at Diego Garcia, could complicate considerably the US ability to amass desired support for an attack on Iran (or sustain the preferred pace of military operations) in the robust manner outlined in the leaked 2006 US military operations plan reportedly briefed to President Bush.
Thus, the tactical problems associated with this apparent UK decision might give pause to US policymakers mulling over any massive knockout blow against Iran’s greatly dispersed nuclear infrastructure, as well as the many and varied Iranian military assets available to defend it.
Iraq was “iffy” and so was Libya. So much so that the diplomat Lavrov did not mince words and called it what it was – illegal!
This “public tiff” is nothing but the latest episode of the soap opera theater – made for domestic and international consumption. No legal construct will impede an attack if and when the US and UK can conceive of a successful attack. The only impediment is the great degree of outcome uncertainty suggested by war simulations.
Forgive the blunt statements, but can anyone cite a single major international conflict decision in the past 15 years where legality stood in the way of US and our allies in achieving the ends.
British limp wristedness is not the problem. The problem is that Iranian missiles can take out 50% of the world’s oil production given that Saudi, Kuwaiti, and UAE installations are within range.
Jay Iraq wasnt Iffy at all it was and still is an aggressive war of the illegal kind. On the eve of the Iraqi invasion Koffe Anan said that the UNited States of America did not have permission by the UN security council to wage war, there was NO Resolution that allowed war!
Hence not at all Iffy but in fact Illegal and a War crime of the same exact Magnitude that Hitlers Minnions faced at Nuremberg. Waging Aggressive warfare!
Even under the AUMF which stated that the President could not wage war on Iraq without the specific permission of the UN security council!
The problem for US, and UK warmongers is that both China, and Russia have made direct threats against any attack on Iran. This attack would be a direct threat against both of them, furthermore one would hope that both would devastate both the US, and UK in any military attack on Iran. A beatdown of enormous proportions would take place, and send the US back home with its tail between its legs..
It is naive to believe that a real rift exists. Prior to the Iraq War, the then UK Attorney General ruled that such an invasion would be illegal and published his long legal opinion to Blair and the Cabinet. After a subsequent visit to the US, he “changed” his legal opinion to one-sheet agreeing the “legality” of the invasion.
Comments are closed.