The Legal Case For Striking Iran

[mandym]

Over in the L.A. Times, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman argues that a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would violate both U.S. and international law. Relying principally on Article 51 of the U.N. Charter (which states that the Charter does not “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”), his analysis can be boiled down to one sentence: Iran hasn’t launched an “armed attack” against America, so no America cannot strike Iran.

But this argument ignores a fundamental reality of the American–Iranian and Israeli–Iranian conflicts. There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

http://aclj.org/iran/legal-case-striking-iran

 

[JPPT1974]

As US would have to get other allies in there. Like Great Britian, France, etc. In order to strike Iran. Because Iran has the nukes. Which is very dangerous. As everybody would have to get on the USA side in order for them to defeat Iran.

As well as remove that crazed dictator leader of theirs. It would take a lot of countries to help the USA win against Iran.