Foresman on an "Act of War"

As the discussion of a possible Israeli attack on Iran swirls around Washington, I have to wonder whether either the Israeli government or the government of the United States has considered that an attack on Iran would be considered an Act of War under International Law.

While I believe it is clearly part of the calculus for the United States Government, I have to wonder if the Israeli government is so arrogant that they believe they will get a “hall pass” from the civilized world.

We Americans tend to be fairly isolated from the opinions of foreign governments, and we have come to accept the actions of Israel as being right and proper because our government and many of our institutions have said that it is the way it should be. There was a time when European governments felt the same way; however over the last twenty years or so, European governments of all stripes have come to question the legitimacy of many of Israel’s actions vis a vie the Palestinians.

While Israel can rightly expect a United States veto of any draconian resolution in the United Nations Security Council; the United States cannot protect Israel from the actions of individual countries or more importantly the World Court. I have no doubt that the leaders of Israel, to include Shimon Peres, the last true Israeli statesman, will be indicted by the World Court if they launch an unprovoked attack against Iran. They will also find that Israel is isolated and shunned by the civilized nations of the world, except of course the United States.

Unfortunately I doubt that Bibi and the leaders of the radical right in Israel have given any serious thought to the second and third order effects of an attack on Iran.

Hank Foresman

--------------------------------------

This is the first post published here by Colonel (Ret.) Henry Foresman.  We look forward to many more.  pl 

Comments

[r whitman]

Interesting happenings on some Sunday news-entertainment programs. F Zakaria had an Iran does not have the bomb segment along with a panel that had two semi-peaceniks, both Israelis. Also included in the panel were two foaming at the mouth warniks.

60 minutes had Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad, saying dont bomb Iran stupid to Bibi.

Interesting change in the US media. Did someone pass the word or give them a signal??

[The beaver]

Col.

Did you see Meir Dagan, former Mossad boss on 60 minutes last night?
He is against Israelis and Americans who claim that Iran is ruled by crazed clerics intent on ending the world who cannot be deterred from using nuclear arms. He mentioned the rationality of the Iranian leadership.

Just want to be a fly on the walls of AIPAC and the 20% of Congress who went to the summer camp in Tel-Aviv last year.

[Lars]

In case of an unilateral attack by Israel, it will be hard for the US government to condone it, much less support it. As has been referred to, many other governments have found fault with the Israelis over the years. The US government cannot afford the political consequences of supporting such actions. There may once have been such a time but that passed quite some time ago.

Some of us remember sitting in lines just to get a few gallons of gasoline, as supplies to the US were cut. It would be even worse this time and impact more commodities. The US, and the world economy is too weak still to handle such a disruption.

I guess it comes down to how crazy Bibi is?

[Jake]

With Putin back in control. I have to wonder how this will play out with any actions against Iran?

[Matthew]

The Dagan interview was interesting on so many levels. First, the cheap propaganda, i.e., Arabs call Dagan "Superman"? No source given--or Arab identified. Second, the appeal to the "modernity" of Tel Aviv at night. Well, most cities look cleaner and modern at night. Very few (like Paris) look fantastic both day or night Third, the incompetence triumphant. So the Mossad sent 27 people to strangle one Palestinian dude in Dubai? And they were identified? Fourth, the utterly false bravado, constantly threatening to attack Iran, when they are literally begging Uncle Sam to do it. Overall, the interview was a metaphor for Israel's delusions of grandeur. I'm surprised Israel's cabinet meetings aren't regulated by men wearing white lab coats.

On a brighter note, President Obama must has disappointed Bibi. The murderous assault on Gaza this weekend is senseless and reeks of petulance.

[mo]

The US, Europe and Micronesia are in lock step over Iran. Iran must "surrender" or anything Israel does will be taken with a "we tried our best" shrug of the shoulders. Would an attack on an Iranian facility be any more of a crime in the "world court" than what they have got away with previously?

Besides, I think the consequences by themselves will make any "legalities" a moot point.

p.s If Peres is the last true Israeli statesman, please allow me to give you a tour of Qana's graves and the children buried there to perhaps alter that statement to war criminal.

[FB Ali]

Col Foresman speaks of “an Act of War under International Law”. Unfortunately, the US has gone far beyond such formalistic, legal considerations. Tom Engelhardt has recently written an interesting article on this subject, in which he discusses how Obama has further expanded the war-making concepts developed by Bush-Cheney. He has taken their “1% war” into a 0% war. As he concludes:

What could change the world in a radical way, however, is the 0% doctrine ─ and the trend more generally to make war the personal prerogative of an American president, while ceding to the U.S. military what was once the province and power of diplomacy.

There is also a a very sensible article on the Iranian nuclear issue in the Guardian. Worth reading.

[greg0]

Hope that Obama pays more attention to US military opinion than to Congressional/US media tools.
But maybe Israel is just paying 'bad cop' and there won't be any unprovoked attacks.

[Hank Foresman]

FB Ali,

Saw the Engelhardt article this morning after I had posted his.

[Walrus]

Col. Foresman is right in saying that there may be international "consequences" for Israel that the U.S. cannot deflect.

However the issue that SST might like to consider is that there would also be "consequences" for America if it was perceived internationally that America enabled and emboldened Israel in its agression. Six dollar gas might be the least of the problems.

The wave of international sympathy in the wake of 911 has subsided. There is considerable moral outrage over the shredding of Constitutional niceties in "The War On Terror", the Federal Government arming itself with all the tools of a police state, targetted killing, not to mention the Government inflicted atavistic cruelty inflicted on the American poor. All of it is chronicled not by foreigners but by Americans like Glen Greenwald in excruciating detail.

The natural American reaction to the previous paragraph is "screw you and the horse you rode in on". However I submit that American insularity may not be appropriate since America is both a net borrower aand a net importer of a lot of things. To put that another way, the concept of "The indespensable nation" might be found malarkey.

While I think Obama is aware of the negative possibilities for America, I don't think Congress gives a hoot.