The Case for Military Action in Iran
In this week's National Review, I make the legal case for a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. Where the Obama administration has merely checked in this high-stakes game of poker, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have gone all in (Ron Paul, of course, folded long ago). In last month’s South Carolina debate, Mitt Romney promised that Iran “will not have a nuclear weapon” under his presidency. Economic sanctions and aid to internal opposition come first, said the former Massachusetts governor, but “if all else fails . . . [and] there’s nothing else we can do besides take military action, then of course you take military action.” Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in several early states, heartily agrees. In the South Carolina debate, Gingrich proposed covert operations, including “taking out their scientists” and “breaking up their systems,” and a Cold War–style strategy “of breaking the regime and bringing it down.” But the former House speaker “agree[s] entirely” with Romney that, should pressure fail, “you have to take whatever steps are necessary” to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
I argue, as I did with the Libyan intervention, that the United States should not be limited by the UN Charter, which limits the use of force to self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council (which would never approve strikes against Iran because of China's and Russia's vetos). The Charter rules have never described state practice and have the effect of keeping dictators in power and preventing the United States and its allies from maintaining peace and security in the world. The United States should have the legal right to use military force when it removes dangerous threats not just to our security, but to regions and the world -- and that is, I argue, exactly what is posed by the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons.
A president need not wait until an attack is imminent before taking action. Iranian nuclear capabilities would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power, and that fact justifies action in itself. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Pres. John F. Kennedy imposed a blockade, which is an act of war, though his legal advisers claimed it was a "quarantine" instead. Soviet nuclear missiles were not fueling on the launch pads, but President Kennedy used force because the Russian deployment upset the superpower equilibrium in the Western Hemisphere.
Even realists who criticize a pro-democracy agenda should support the prevention of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. Iran seeks to export its fundamentalist revolution, with its brutal suppression of individual rights and free markets, throughout the region. It stokes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its president hopes to wipe Israel from the map. It undermines reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq. It supports terrorists throughout the world. It threatens to close off the Straits of Hormuz, through which travels 17 percent of the oil traded worldwide. It has attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf. A nuclear Iran could expand its asymmetric warfare against its neighbors, or even escalate into conventional warfare, with little fear of direct retaliation.
Military action need not go so far as an invasion or even a no-fly zone. Our forces would have to destroy Iranian air-defense sites, but otherwise, thanks to precision-guided missiles and drones, they could concentrate on a few links in the Iranian nuclear chain: the centrifuge facilities where uranium is enriched, the assembly points for weapons, and perhaps missile and air-delivery systems.
If you don't have the latest edition of National Review, read the whole argument here.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Prof. Yoo: Thanks for writing the article and for contributing to the discussion.
I'm going to jump over the places in which we agree to address the areas in which I would like further clarification from you, or where we may disagree.
1) Your statement that a President need not wait for imminent attack is right in part, but you fail to present any limits to it. I’m not sure if your silence is telling, or if it is the result of the constraints of article length. In any event, we are left with the (perhaps unfair) impression that you believe a President, whenever and wherever he thinks there might ever emerge a threat at any time in the future, even if one has not emerged, has the power to commit military forces of an unspecified size and for an unspecified length of time for objectives that he doesn’t need to spell out to Congress.
To say the least, this argument downplays Constitutional restrictions and seems to be in tension with your arguments that President Obama has failed to make a case to the public. Can you perhaps clarify? (continued below)
Mar '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
(continued from above)
2) I think the article severely underestimates the costs and duration of undertaking this operation, and I think you overstate the likelihood that Iran, once defanged of its nuclear program, will play tolerably nice. With regard to the former, for strikes to be undertaken in the way you suggest requires certain military prerequisites which I haven’t the space to detail here but which cannot be conjured from thin air and which will require a greater presence in the region of certain elements that your article omits. The matter of destroying Iranian air defenses involves more force than you suggest, and doesn't take account of what Iran will do in response.
With regard to the latter, surely Iran, having faced military action from the United States, is not likely to be chastened but is more likely, through the organs in Syria, North Africa or elsewhere that it funds, to strike against Israel or the United States.
That is to say: in war, fortuna plays a role. Once you’ve committed to the use of force, you must surely consider the very real possibility that the endgame does not end with the regime remaining in power there.
Nov '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
So, just to clarify. You want to nuke Iranian cities?
Apr '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Mr. Yoo, I agree that we should not be bound by the UN Charter in this matter. I have a different question.
Given the following conditions: the threat is far-out, other options exist before the threat becomes imminent, the threat is one of capabilities and intent but not of act.
Under these conditions, would it be constitutional for the President to commit an act of war against another state without a congressional authorization?
Mar '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Fred Cole:
The Iranians won't close the Straight of Hormuz. They'd lose their navy. They're not that dumb. · Dec 28 at 6:29pm
Yes they are. They've tried to do it before (did you forget they mined the Gulf to close it off from traffic in 1988?), and we ended up sinking or damaging a large part of their Navy in the process. The result of Iran's attempt to close the Gulf the first time was the largest naval battle since WWII, and a decisive Iranian defeat. One of the very first assignments I had as a young sailor on USS Enterprise was to assist in building up some Skipper II missile kits in case the Iranian fleet... or what was left of it... came back for more. Yes sir, they are that "dumb". They haven't learned anything.
Nov '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Douglas
Yes they are. They've tried to do it before (did you forget they mined the Gulf to close it off from traffic in 1988?), and we ended up sinking or damaging a large part of their Navy in the process. The result of Iran's attempt to close the Gulf the first time was the largest naval battle since WWII, and a decisive Iranian defeat. One of the very first assignments I had as a young sailor on USS Enterprise was to assist in building up some Skipper II missile kits in case the Iranian fleet... or what was left of it... came back for more. Yes sir, they are that "dumb". They haven't learned anything. · Dec 29 at 10:29am
Thank you. That made for interesting reading. I'm too young to remember that, but it was interesting.
I have two thoughts:
1. They mined the Persian Gulf during a war.
2. Anyone who remembers it will know not to directly engage the United States like that again.
Dec '10
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Fred Cole
Thank you. That made for interesting reading. I'm too young to remember that, but it was interesting.
I have two thoughts:
1. They mined the Persian Gulf during a war.
2. Anyone who remembers it will know not to directly engage the United States like that again. · Dec 29 at 11:16am
They mined the Persian Gulf when they were at war with only one nation in the Gulf. Iran chose to tell the rest of the Gulf Arab nations that they had the choice of abandoning support for Iraq or having their oil exports shut off. That was a violation of international law and and attack on neutral parties.
Iran remembers that Reagan was President at that time and learned the difference between Reagan and Carter. There's little difference between Obama and Carter, and Iran will surely close the Strait if its nuclear program comes under attack, by Israel or the US. It will be their only card left to play, and they will gamble that Obama won't be willing to order the scale of military operation that their action calls for.
May '10
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
"Fred Cole "So, just to clarify. You want to nuke Iranian cities?" If the operative word is 'want' then, no. No one in their right mind wants to nuke anyone. But if the operative word is 'cities', then, yes. The enemy sets the terms of engagement. If our cities are targets (and IMO they certainly are) then their cities must be targets, too. You stop aggression by making it clear that those who would do you harm have more to lose than to gain in an engagement. For 2/3 of a century America has made it clear to our enemies that we have no stomach for killing innocents. And the result has been that, since Hiroshima/Nagasaki well over 90,000 American lives have been lost in losing wars of attrition in which the enemy knew that if they merely outlasted us, we would leave with our tail between our legs. That's just the ugly facts of life.
Dec '10
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Moreover, I certainly do not want to wait until after an American city has been nuked to do something to prevent further attacks.
Nov '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Stuart Creque
They mined the Persian Gulf when they were at war with only one nation in the Gulf. Iran chose to tell the rest of the Gulf Arab nations that they had the choice of abandoning support for Iraq or having their oil exports shut off. That was a violation of international law and and attack on neutral parties.
Iran remembers that Reagan was President at that time and learned the difference between Reagan and Carter. There's little difference between Obama and Carter, and Iran will surely close the Strait if its nuclear program comes under attack, by Israel or the US. It will be their only card left to play, and they will gamble that Obama won't be willing to order the scale of military operation that their action calls for. ·
I might disagree with that. He had no problem dropping bombs on Libya.
And my point, I suppose I made it poorly, was
1. They did this in the middle of the war, not out of the blue.
2. There will be an institutional memory that they got creamed the last time they directly engaged the USN. That'll happen regardless of the president.
Nov '11
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Tom Lindholtz:
If the operative word is 'want' then, no. No one in their right mind wants to nuke anyone. But if the operative word is 'cities', then, yes. The enemy sets the terms of engagement. If our cities are targets (and IMO they certainly are) then their cities must be targets, too. You stop aggression by making it clear that those who would do you harm have more to lose than to gain in an engagement. For 2/3 of a century America has made it clear to our enemies that we have no stomach for killing innocents. And the result has been that, since Hiroshima/Nagasaki well over 90,000 American lives have been lost in losing wars of attrition in which the enemy knew that if they merely outlasted us, we would leave with our tail between our legs. That's just the ugly facts of life. · Dec 29 at 7:31pm
So the solution is to kill innocents?
I'm sorry, but the suggestion that we preemptively nuke cities full of civilians is, well, frankly, monstrous.
IF we must have nuclear weapons, they should only be used in response.
Sep '10
Re: The Case for Military Action in Iran
Mr Yoo, have you ever imagined pain and suffering that you couldn't justify?
"The United States should have the legal right to use military force when it removes dangerous threats not just to our security, but to regions and the world". You might hope for such a legal right but none exists, sir.
[Comment redacted due to CoC violation]
Edited on January 4, 2012 at 10:42pm