Discussion
I am not a great fan of Donald Trump's latest activities in the Middle East, but am interested to see this described as an 'illegal' war.
If (as seems likely) the US were persuaded to act by Israel, then they were going to the aid of an ally. It would be difficult to argue that Israel was not under attack from Iran, even if some of the attacks were by proxies in Lebanon. This would surely very much muddy the water as to whether an attack (with or without the US) was 'legal' or not? Then of course, the elephant in the room is constant Iranian threats and rhetoric, coupled with some actual physical attacks on US infrastructure and personnel over the last half century.
Moving on from this: In the last few days, Britain and many of it's allies have been directly attacked by Iran, despite taking no immediate part in the Israeli/US operation. Does this mean that any action taken against Iran by any of those countries (including Britain) would be totally legal, with no grey areas - I don't see why it wouldn't?
I'm not advocating anything here, just interested in some of the rhetoric being used.
If (as seems likely) the US were persuaded to act by Israel, then they were going to the aid of an ally. It would be difficult to argue that Israel was not under attack from Iran, even if some of the attacks were by proxies in Lebanon. This would surely very much muddy the water as to whether an attack (with or without the US) was 'legal' or not? Then of course, the elephant in the room is constant Iranian threats and rhetoric, coupled with some actual physical attacks on US infrastructure and personnel over the last half century.
Moving on from this: In the last few days, Britain and many of it's allies have been directly attacked by Iran, despite taking no immediate part in the Israeli/US operation. Does this mean that any action taken against Iran by any of those countries (including Britain) would be totally legal, with no grey areas - I don't see why it wouldn't?
I'm not advocating anything here, just interested in some of the rhetoric being used.
Foss62 said:
I am not a great fan of Donald Trump's latest activities in the Middle East, but am interested to see this described as an 'illegal' war.
If (as seems likely) the US were persuaded to act by Israel, then they were going to the aid of an ally. It would be difficult to argue that Israel was not under attack from Iran, even if some of the attacks were by proxies in Lebanon. This would surely very much muddy the water as to whether an attack (with or without the US) was 'legal' or not? Then of course, the elephant in the room is constant Iranian threats and rhetoric, coupled with some actual physical attacks on US infrastructure and personnel over the last half century.
Moving on from this: In the last few days, Britain and many of it's allies have been directly attacked by Iran, despite taking no immediate part in the Israeli/US operation. Does this mean that any action taken against Iran by any of those countries (including Britain) would be totally legal, with no grey areas - I don't see why it wouldn't?
I'm not advocating anything here, just interested in some of the rhetoric being used.
I think this stems from the US Constitution giving Congress the sole power to declare war. Did Trump go through Congress (I genuinely don't know) or is that a "Special Operation" type thing?If (as seems likely) the US were persuaded to act by Israel, then they were going to the aid of an ally. It would be difficult to argue that Israel was not under attack from Iran, even if some of the attacks were by proxies in Lebanon. This would surely very much muddy the water as to whether an attack (with or without the US) was 'legal' or not? Then of course, the elephant in the room is constant Iranian threats and rhetoric, coupled with some actual physical attacks on US infrastructure and personnel over the last half century.
Moving on from this: In the last few days, Britain and many of it's allies have been directly attacked by Iran, despite taking no immediate part in the Israeli/US operation. Does this mean that any action taken against Iran by any of those countries (including Britain) would be totally legal, with no grey areas - I don't see why it wouldn't?
I'm not advocating anything here, just interested in some of the rhetoric being used.
RedWhiteMonkey said:
I think this stems from the US Constitution giving Congress the sole power to declare war. Did Trump go through Congress (I genuinely don't know) or is that a "Special Operation" type thing?
the last time the US formally declared war was WW2. Congress variously (but not always) has authorised use of force aka special military operations for the multitude of US escapades over the decades but not war. I don't believe Grenada/Panama or actually even Korea had that but Vietnam/Iraq (both) did. The legality seems to depend upon who's doing what to whom, and the colour of the reporting.
Openly threatening other countries? Terrorism via proxy? Attempts at overthrowing legitimate governments? All could apply equally to the current US government as to Iran for example.
Tellingly, as pointed out in a different thread, Tony Blair is blamed for taking the UK into an illegal war, but SKS is being blamed for not taking us into a foreign war. It's all about the message that the media owners want to push not about the actual legality of the situation.
Where's the evidence of Iran suddenly becoming a threat? Is it being hidden from people, or does it just not exist? Where's the equivalent WMD dossier for the latest attacks in the ME?
Iran have been behaving like dicks, but other countries have been doing exactly the same for considerable time without finding their leaders assassinated.
Openly threatening other countries? Terrorism via proxy? Attempts at overthrowing legitimate governments? All could apply equally to the current US government as to Iran for example.
Tellingly, as pointed out in a different thread, Tony Blair is blamed for taking the UK into an illegal war, but SKS is being blamed for not taking us into a foreign war. It's all about the message that the media owners want to push not about the actual legality of the situation.
Where's the evidence of Iran suddenly becoming a threat? Is it being hidden from people, or does it just not exist? Where's the equivalent WMD dossier for the latest attacks in the ME?
Iran have been behaving like dicks, but other countries have been doing exactly the same for considerable time without finding their leaders assassinated.
tangerine_sedge said:
The legality seems to depend upon who's doing what to whom, and the colour of the reporting.
Openly threatening other countries? Terrorism via proxy? Attempts at overthrowing legitimate governments? All could apply equally to the current US government as to Iran for example.
Tellingly, as pointed out in a different thread, Tony Blair is blamed for taking the UK into an illegal war, but SKS is being blamed for not taking us into a foreign war. It's all about the message that the media owners want to push not about the actual legality of the situation.
Where's the evidence of Iran suddenly becoming a threat? Is it being hidden from people, or does it just not exist? Where's the equivalent WMD dossier for the latest attacks in the ME?
Iran have been behaving like dicks, but other countries have been doing exactly the same for considerable time without finding their leaders assassinated.
100%Openly threatening other countries? Terrorism via proxy? Attempts at overthrowing legitimate governments? All could apply equally to the current US government as to Iran for example.
Tellingly, as pointed out in a different thread, Tony Blair is blamed for taking the UK into an illegal war, but SKS is being blamed for not taking us into a foreign war. It's all about the message that the media owners want to push not about the actual legality of the situation.
Where's the evidence of Iran suddenly becoming a threat? Is it being hidden from people, or does it just not exist? Where's the equivalent WMD dossier for the latest attacks in the ME?
Iran have been behaving like dicks, but other countries have been doing exactly the same for considerable time without finding their leaders assassinated.
tangerine_sedge said:
Tellingly, as pointed out in a different thread, Tony Blair is blamed for taking the UK into an illegal war, but SKS is being blamed for not taking us into a foreign war. It's all about the message that the media owners want to push not about the actual legality of the situation.
Where's the evidence of Iran suddenly becoming a threat? Is it being hidden from people, or does it just not exist? Where's the equivalent WMD dossier for the latest attacks in the ME?
Albeit controversially, the Iraq war was declared legal by the UK's Attorney General and was voted for by Parliament.Where's the evidence of Iran suddenly becoming a threat? Is it being hidden from people, or does it just not exist? Where's the equivalent WMD dossier for the latest attacks in the ME?
Regarding Iran being a threat, it has enriched Uranium to 60%, well in excess of the 5% required for civilian use.
Why is it illegal for Israel - they have been directly under attack from Iran s proxies for years? I just realised I repeated the point that was made on another thread. This isn’t the same as Iraq Pt 2 - Iraq wasn’t attacking any country when it was invaded.
Edited by fido on Wednesday 4th March 12:40
fido said:
Why is it illegal for Israel - they have been directly under attack from Iran s proxies for years? I just realised I repeated the point that was made on another thread. This isn t the same as Iraq Pt 2 - Iraq wasn t attacking any country when it was invaded.
Iraq was accused of pretty much the same at the time. Edited by fido on Wednesday 4th March 12:40
A lot of our problems are caused by lawyers. The law no longer protects the right people, and we should ask whether something is the right thing to do, rather than if it is legal. It seems today we are often stopped from doing the right thing because there is no legal framework to achieve it, or the law protects the individual over the wider community.
Is this action against the Iranian Islamic regime right? Yes. Is it legal? Who cares.
Is this action against the Iranian Islamic regime right? Yes. Is it legal? Who cares.
WH16 said:
A lot of our problems are caused by lawyers. The law no longer protects the right people, and we should ask whether something is the right thing to do, rather than if it is legal. It seems today we are often stopped from doing the right thing because there is no legal framework to achieve it, or the law protects the individual over the wider community.
Is this action against the Iranian Islamic regime right? Yes. Is it legal? Who cares.
Sorry, but that just sounds like conveniently ignoring the law when it doesn't suit the narrative. Without the law who decides who the "right people" are, who decides what the "right thing to do" is? History has taught that this is a dangerous path to follow.Is this action against the Iranian Islamic regime right? Yes. Is it legal? Who cares.
RedWhiteMonkey said:
Sorry, but that just sounds like conveniently ignoring the law when it doesn't suit the narrative. Without the law who decides who the "right people" are, who decides what the "right thing to do" is? History has taught that this is a dangerous path to follow.
I am lead to believe that under article 2 of the American consitution, the sitting president can take action for a limited amount of days, same as was invoked by Obama attacking LibyaPhud said:
I am lead to believe that under article 2 of the American consitution, the sitting president can take action for a limited amount of days, same as was invoked by Obama attacking Libya
So Trump is copying Obama, I'm sure they'll both love that being pointed out!Based on some quickish reading it seems that a lot of wars or military actions have been carried out with prior approval from Congress (including I believe the Korean War and the Vietnam War). There appears to be differing opinions but it is also generally thought that a President should only go directly to war without Congress approval (is that under Art. 2 - executive powers?) when there is a direct and immediate threat. I assume Iran was deemed a direct and immediate threat.
I don't consider Iran being attacked necessarily the wrong thing to do, I am more worried about what happens next. The US' record on engagement in the Middle East isn't great and then there is the problem that Trump has the attention span of a toddler and will want to move onto the next thing next week.
Edited by RedWhiteMonkey on Wednesday 4th March 14:07
RedWhiteMonkey said:
So Trump is copying Obama, I'm sure they'll both love that being pointed out!
Based on some quickish reading it seems that a lot of wars or military actions have been carried out with prior approval from Congress (including I believe the Korean War and the Vietnam War). There appears to be differing opinions but it is also generally thought that a President should only go directly to war without Congress approval (is that under Art. 2 - executive powers?) when there is a direct and immediate threat. I assume Iran was deemed a direct and immediate threat.
I don't consider Iran being attacked necessarily the wrong thing to do, I am more worried about what happens next. The US' record on engagement in the Middle East isn't great and then there is the problem that Trump has the attention span of a toddler and will want to move onto the next thing next week.
Agree with you totally, I doubt the next phase has had any thought, I expect there is a hope that this would lead to an uprising against the mulllasBased on some quickish reading it seems that a lot of wars or military actions have been carried out with prior approval from Congress (including I believe the Korean War and the Vietnam War). There appears to be differing opinions but it is also generally thought that a President should only go directly to war without Congress approval (is that under Art. 2 - executive powers?) when there is a direct and immediate threat. I assume Iran was deemed a direct and immediate threat.
I don't consider Iran being attacked necessarily the wrong thing to do, I am more worried about what happens next. The US' record on engagement in the Middle East isn't great and then there is the problem that Trump has the attention span of a toddler and will want to move onto the next thing next week.
Edited by RedWhiteMonkey on Wednesday 4th March 14:07
International law arises from states signing up to treaties. If you've signed up to membership of the United Nations, then there are two legal justifications for going to war.
1. Self-defence against an armed attack
2. A Security Council resolution that authorizes enforcement action.
The legal justification for the Blair/Bush Iraq war was a tenuous version of (2). They said that Iraq was in breach of Security Council resolutions that threatened military intervention. Others said they were either not in breach, or that action required an explicit new UNSC resolution.
Is Israel and the US's current action justified by either of those criteria? No. Frankly, quite clearly not. Iran was not conducting an armed attack on Israel, and no one is claiming they were. The US in particular are publicly saying "b
ks to international law. We're doing what we think is right and that is far more important than debating legal technicalities."
So the initial military action was illegal.
Then Iran started attacking all the neighbours including a UK base in Cyprus.
That is an armed attack. That justifies the UK and the neighbours going to war in self-defence, according to the UN charter.
This is why Starmer said "no" to the yank's request to use their UK bases to launch the INITIAL illegal attack on Iran, and why he later said "you can now use your UK bases to attack Iran's missile facilities in defence of us and the neighbours."
Starmer's position throughout has been completely consistent with our UN treaty obligations. Whether they have been politically skillful or expedient is an entirely different question.
1. Self-defence against an armed attack
2. A Security Council resolution that authorizes enforcement action.
The legal justification for the Blair/Bush Iraq war was a tenuous version of (2). They said that Iraq was in breach of Security Council resolutions that threatened military intervention. Others said they were either not in breach, or that action required an explicit new UNSC resolution.
Is Israel and the US's current action justified by either of those criteria? No. Frankly, quite clearly not. Iran was not conducting an armed attack on Israel, and no one is claiming they were. The US in particular are publicly saying "b
ks to international law. We're doing what we think is right and that is far more important than debating legal technicalities."So the initial military action was illegal.
Then Iran started attacking all the neighbours including a UK base in Cyprus.
That is an armed attack. That justifies the UK and the neighbours going to war in self-defence, according to the UN charter.
This is why Starmer said "no" to the yank's request to use their UK bases to launch the INITIAL illegal attack on Iran, and why he later said "you can now use your UK bases to attack Iran's missile facilities in defence of us and the neighbours."
Starmer's position throughout has been completely consistent with our UN treaty obligations. Whether they have been politically skillful or expedient is an entirely different question.
pghstochaj said:
Iraq was accused of pretty much the same at the time.
If you're talking about the 1991 Iraqi missile attacks against Israel - Israel had every right to attack Iraq at that moment. I suppose with Iran it has been ongoing via many multiple proxies and given Iran's rapid accumulation of missiles - well what would you do in their position - wait until they have a full arsenal?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff