The media are still fulminating about President Trump’s abrogation of the Iran deal. You might think the rescinding of an executive order by another presidential ukase might encourage reflection among Democrats about the wisdom the strategy and, indeed, the 50%+1 strategy that seems to be becoming the norm in Congress but I doubt it will. Our system of government is constructed in such a way as to require collaboration and compromise, no matter how detested or wrong your interlocutors may be. That was my main complaint about the Pelosi-Reid Congress. Prior to their guidance the Congress had never enacted a major piece of social legislation on a party-line basis. Après moi le déluge. We will see more of it.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal say that Trump’s action was only possible because President Obama failed to cultivate support for the Iran deal at home:
Mr. Obama issued his own broadside Tuesday against withdrawal, but then he made it easier for Mr. Trump by never winning domestic support for the deal. He refused to submit it for Senate approval as a treaty, which would have had the force of law. Mr. Trump is walking away from Mr. Obama’s personal commitment to Iran, not an American commitment.
That was my major criticism of President Obama. He had no patience with the politicking necessary to accomplish what you want under our system. He was too convinced of his own rightness and thought that when he was right he should just be obeyed. That is not our system, either.
Now that the Iran deal is dead from the American side, what next? The Iranians shelled Israeli military sites in Syria, something they’re legally entitled to do. The Israelis responded by shelling Iranian military sites in Syria, something they’re not legally entitled to do (the legal response would have been to withdraw from what is internationally recognized as Syrian territory). I think the Iranian action was ill-considered and the Israeli riposte understandable but it’s a very dangerous situation. To my eye the United States is being drawn step by step into a major Middle Eastern war, the likes of which has not been seen before.
I guess we’ll need to see what the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese do. Maybe Trump-Bolton truculence will be effective in extracting more concessions from Iran but somehow I doubt it.
Jumpin’ Jack Obama is discovering that his brand of governance is a gas gas gas while it lasts, but ages like Two Buck Chuck.
Now he, Hillary, Kerry and Susie Q are left howling in a driving rain……
As for the future, what with Iran playing hide the pea under the Obama Unpassable Treaty So I’ll Just Wing It Personal Promise (OUTSIJWIPP) contra most supporters I really don’t see what was lost.
“The Iranians shelled Israeli military sites in Syria, something they’re legally entitled to do.”
No, it isn’t legal. There’s no inherent right for the military forces of one nation to attack the military forces of another nation.
US forces are also on Syrian soil – if Iran attacked our forces it would legally constitute an armed attack by Iran on the United States with all the consequences that would follow.
That’s incorrect. There is an inherent right of self-defense. It doesn’t require Security Council approval. The Israelis are occupying Syrian territory and the Israeli emplacements struck by missiles were in that territory. That’s a prima facie case of self-defense.
You’re wrong in your assessments, Andy. Iran is in Syria at the request of the Syrian government. They are there legally. We are there illegally. Syria and Iran have a right to attack our forces in Syrian territory but they don’t as long as a) what we’re doing is in their interests and b) they don’t want to start WWIII.
I guess I don’t understand the legal status of the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. I know that Israel has earned condemnation for trying to settle and annex the territory, but I thought the formal status was still a legal military occupation based on the 1974 cease fire. If not then I can see the case that Dave is making but if my understanding is correct and their military forces didn’t provoke the attack then wouldn’t the premise of right to self defense apply?
That is, self defense on the part of the Israeli troops who are (in my scenario) legally occupying the territory.
Is is internationally recognized as part of Syria. That is laid out in UNSEC Resolution 497. There have been multiple other resolutions since then. The Israelis are there illegally.
Dave, you are 100% correct. It’s illegal and Israel will bear the full weight and consequences of violating a UN resolution. That is, after they pay the price for the other 197 resolutions pending.
Dave,
“There is an inherent right of self-defense. It doesn’t require Security Council approval. The Israelis are occupying Syrian territory and the Israeli emplacements struck by missiles were in that territory. That’s a prima facie case of self-defense.”
This doesn’t make any sense. Even if we assume away the long history of the Golan and the dispute between Syria and Israel over the territory, that conflict is between Syria and Israel, not Iran. The Golan has nothing to do with Iran, therefore that can’t be used as a justification for self-defense. We couldn’t, for example, lob missiles into Crimea simply because we happen to have forces in Ukraine and the international community still considers Crimea part of Ukraine.
And I don’t think either Syria or Iran would make your argument.
I doubt Iran will come out and declare that it is a party to the 1973 war and that it is violating the ceasefire from that war to enforce Syrian territorial claims.
The only way the self-defense argument works is as a response to Isreali strikes on Iranian and proxy forces in Syria (and yes, those are illegal), but even that is a stretch considering the target chosen by Iran had nothing to do with those attacks, but that is the best argument that this attack was legal.
To me, this action is more accurately called an armed reprisal which is illegal under the UN Charter except in very narrow circumstances.
And yes, countries (including the US), regularly violate the UN’s prohibition on armed reprisals. That may make Iran’s action understandable, but it doesn’t make it legal.
Andy, you’re just saying that you disagree with the Security Council resolutions.
That’s exactly the point.
What I think are insufficiently appreciated are that
Dave,
If we’re talking gnat’s ass legalities the Iranian strike was illegal. Full stop.
The UN charter is clear that military force can only be used when it’s been specifically authorized. The UN resolution that declares that the Golan is Syrian and not Isreali territory does not give Syria permission to attack Israeli forces there. It certainly does not give Iran permission to attack Israeli forces there.
Has the UN authorized military action to return the Golan to Syrian? No, it hasn’t. Iran has no legal right to attack Israeli forces there – and there is no UN resolution that allows it.
As for your lettered points:
Point (a) is irrelevant when it comes to the legality of Iran’s action. The fact that Iranians are in Syria legally does not give Iran legal permission to attack Israeli forces.
b. I agree with that
c. I don’t think we need to decide anything, much less the outcome. Our interference in the Syrian civil war should be as limited as possible.
Article 51 makes it legal. “Gnat’s ass legalities” are precisely the reason I think we should be more cautious about entering into international agreements.
Whether the Israelis like it or not the Iranians are in Syria legally. When the Israelis attack them, the Iranians have a right to respond.
We’re being drawn inexorably into a Middle Eastern war that nobody wins. If we don’t identify our objectives and pursue only those objectives, I don’t see how we can avoid it. We need to discourage the Israelis from adventurism. Iran is a threat to Israel but they need to learn to live with threats including existential threats. It goes with the neighborhood.
Is is internationally recognized as part of Syria. That is laid out in UNSEC Resolution 497. There have been multiple other resolutions since then. The Israelis are there illegally.
Here is the text of 497.
It declares Israel’s Golan Heights Law null and void but it doesn’t return the territory to Syria or declare Israel’s presence as a military occupying force illegal. Have any of the subsequent resolutions done that?
All I’ve seen are repeated condemnations of Israel’s steps toward annexation (the civilian law and settlements), and renewals of the UNDOF mandate. The mandate itself seems to negate the idea that this is internationally recognized as Syrian territory since Syria is prohibited from engaging in conflict in that zone.
We need to discourage the Israelis from adventurism. Iran is a threat to Israel but they need to learn to live with threats including existential threats. It goes with the neighborhood.
I think this is an extremely anti-Israel viewpoint. Learning to live with existential threats is nearly oxymoronic, particularly if they are not permitted to operate a buffer zone in the Golan Heights. I don’t think they should interject themselves into the Syrian Civil War but they should be permitted to respond and defuse threats.
It’s just a statement of the facts. That any serious threat is an existential threat to Israel is simply a product of its size. One major bombing campaign will destroy it. A single nuclear weapon could destroy it. Living in a tough neighborhood doesn’t grant you a license to do anything you care to. Neither we nor they can grant Israel a risk-free existence short of genocide. Israel needs to mitigate the risks in other ways than bombing its neighbors. IMO U. S. policy should be directed towards helping Israel arrive at peaceful solutions to its problems. For example, we could guarantee Israel’s continued existence and condemn its aggressive acts against its neighbors. Those aren’t in conflict.
We didn’t make the neighborhood a dangerous neighborhood. It was a dangerous neighborhood before the U. S. became Israel’s main international patron and indeed before the U. S. existed. The risks will remain.
For example, we could guarantee Israel’s continued existence and condemn its aggressive acts against its neighbors. Those aren’t in conflict.
They are if the aggressive acts in question are defensive in nature. From 1948 on it was the Arab neighbors who were the aggresssors. Whether or not the UN mandate dividing Palestine was a good idea (it wasn’t in my opinion) the UN and international community made that decision and is responsible for allowing Israel to take necessary measures to protect itself. The Golan Heights has been disputed territory (I still haven’t seen evidence that it is internationally recognized as part of Syria, but please correct me if I am wrong) since it came under Israeli occupation after the Yom Kippur War which was an act of aggression by Syria and Egypt.
That any serious threat is an existential threat to Israel is simply a product of its size.
That’s precisely why Israel should be permitted to keep a buffer zone in Golan Heights unless or until the UN can effectively protect it.
It’s in Section 1 of the resolution. “Occupied Syria” refers to the area in question. The U. S. is a permanent member of the Security Council. Resolution 497 is U. S. policy.
How large a buffer do you envision? Whatever it takes? That’s inconsistent with UN Resolutions and U. S. policy.
Obviously I don’t have enough knowledge to state where the borders ahould be. I’m arguing for the principle that the international community should support Israel having the size and geographical position to be able to defend itself.
“For example, we could guarantee Israel’s continued existence and condemn its aggressive acts against its neighbors. ”
Not sure how we do the first, impossible I think, and given our current politics, the second will not happen. Whatever ideas we have need to be realistic.
Steve