ISRAEL

Major issues!

Although this article's main objective hinges on the legality (or lackthereof) of an attack on (any) nuclear installations, there are two major points in that regard that can not be overlooked. One is that Bushehr reactor, as opposed to those of Syria and Iraq, is already operational and an attack will have catastrophic consequences both in terms of environment and human life -- potential magnitude of reprisals and retributive reactions notwithstanding!

The second point is that evidently IRI most likely seeks weaponization capabilities with regards to its nuclear programme rather than being caught red-handed building one. Which would render "pre-emptive" strikes pointless due to the stealth nature of such programme that does not necessarily rely on Bushehr for its fissile material, for such material could be readily imported and utilized at the crucial moment!

However, Obama's latest political move to persuade N. Korea to roll back its nukes program towards disarmamant, is a smart move that could potentially deprive IRI of one of its main prospective sources! After all, IMO, there are no military solutions to this!

Dear ROTPC: We seem to share some concerns/views but not all...

It appears that we both have great concern for the loss of innocent lives but we diverge about the intention of IRI fueled by its rhetoric.

“But in case of the IRI nuclear program I got the feeling that the war already started”

While I agree with you and share the same feeling, I hardly believe that IRI intentions are to use nuclear weapon in wiping “the illegitimate Zionist entity” off the map, at least not literally but perhaps by diminishing their military superiority in ME and thru power sharing.

We need to keep in mind that:

•     There is no concert evidence for IRI to have a military nuclear program [at least yet]
•     Even Israelis officials believe and admitted that IRI will not use the nuclear weapon to attack Israel, as this will be the end of IRI and Iran for good without any doubt or sympathy as mutual destruction will be guaranteed and IRI has proven to be interested in survival and not suicidal.

Here is how I interpret the real concerns for Iranian nuclear weapon:

•         A nuclear race in ME ( The race has already started by Israel and must be part of that end)
•        Power sharing in ME ( this is more or less in place already and it can be delayed but not denied)
•        IRI Arming Hezbollah without [real] impunity (A credible effort in creating peace in ME will nullify this concern)
•        Prevent the thread of a credible military attack [read influence/control] by US and guarantee of flow of oil (This will serve the long term future/benefit of Iranian people (read not IRI)

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Dear Bavafa, I am in line with you

concerning my hope that no innocennt people should be sacrificed in a military or political action (it has nothing to do with my family or my friends or my compatriots). I feel the same anger if innocent people all over the world are inflicted by criminal, stupid military actions. But in case of the IRI nuclear program I got the feeling that the war already started. The repeated acclamations of the regime to wipe out Israel ("the illegitime zionist entity") from the map leaves very little doubt about their intention, once they posses the right weapon. And a nuclear war in the ME would cause millions of death, virtually within hours, and the vast majority would be civillians. The horror of a nuclear war has been forgotten, for some reason. The consequences of a nuclear contamination as caused by an explosion in or an attack on a atomic installation (as happened in Tschernobyl or Fukushima), in contrast, will have absolutely neglectable health consequences. But the staff that works on the development of nuclear weapons wheresoever must know that they are part of the military infrastructure. Nobody has to work in the arms-industry. Just remember people like Joseph Rothblat, Oppenheimer, or Andrej Sacharov , key figures in the nuclear weapons industry of the US and USSR. They understoud that everybody who contribute its talent to the development of nuclear weapons sells its soul to the devil. They dropped out this machinery, and this is what I recommend anybody in Iran as well. There are better ways to build a future for your country. 

To the interest of the readers of this news and the author:

Please read what it has written in Australian Institute for National Strategic Studies websit before rushing into any conclusion.

  "Whether by coincidence or design, nine days into the war, on September 30, 1980, two Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad also bombed the Osirak reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported, although the reactor was up and running again a short time thereafter. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

It is not clear whether this attack was consciously designed as a strategic strike to deny Saddam Hussein an atomic bomb or whether this raid was an afterthought of two Iranian pilots who had weapons and fuel left to bomb a target of opportunity after their group had attacked the electric power plant."

Long Live IRAN for EVER.

Reference:  //www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/mcnair41/41irq.htm

Response to some of the comments

The intent of my article was to begin a conversation on the legality in international law of an attack on nuclear installations – indeed on any installation with potentially wide-reaching consequences to human life –Iranian or other. I want to respond to a few of the comments.

I want to thank Mohammad Alireza for his valuable contribution to the conversation – which was to highlight the environmental impact of an attack on Iranian nuclear sites – and would like to add that the infliction of that kind of impact on human life and the environment is prohibited under every Hague and Geneva conventions (and protocols) that regulate conduct of warfare and infliction of damage on civilians.

I am not very impressed by the shrill opinion that subjects the discussion of a right-based subject to political vitriol – the elimination of IRI is not the subject of this thread. That goes for the comments made by Artificial Intelligence – Iran is still and will in the end wining the nuke game against the “international community” on this issue, no matter the cost – especially if it is not developing a nuclear weapon.  

I wan to thank Masoud Kazemzadeh for offering thoughtful and informed observations (“counterpoints”) – filling the gap in my argument; although gaps are not “flaws” – they are shortcomings due to the nature of the post, for which nevertheless I take full responsibility.

 As for long live Iran – he/she asked about my reference and yet saw it fit in a sanctimonious flare to declare that my “information is not correct!” This from a person who then proceeded to inform the world that he/she questioned my information on the basis of his/her Googling (whatever query term) and coming up with the following sources:  //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Nuclear_Research_Facility  and //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant . Please try the following links instead:

Re Iranian attack on Osirak - //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Re Iraqi attacks on Bushehr: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

But most importantly: //www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc318.pdf and

//www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc346a2.pdf

I reserve the last of my response for one Midwesty who concluded that my “article and the weight of [my] introduction as a green light to a preemptive attack to Iranian nuclear facilities as the rest of [my] article fails to seriously oppose such an action.” I am no more responsible for the cockeyed self-serving conclusion that a reader draws from the article. Bavafa, on the other hand, wrote: “I still applaud Mr. Guive Mirfendereski to speak against an illegal attack by Israel.” (Emphasis added).

Bavafa also wrote:  “[A]s a point of compare and contrast between Israel and Iran internal affairs, we can see an ex-Iranian living in Israel can write clearly in opposition to their government’s potential plan against an adversary and could only imagine if a Jewish person in Iran was going to write such article in opposition to IRI plan and how he would be received [in Evin].” For the record, I do not live in Israel. I am familiar with Evin only because a relative or two spent time there before the Overthrow and my father served time there after the Overthrow!

It is a curious matter that people who speak truth to power shall have no sleep in the light of day or the dark of night.

Atom for Peace!

The Only Solution!

For Iranians The Only Solution to this issue is the removal of the Islamist terrorists in Tehran from power. Otherwise, they will sacrifice millions more lives.

These criminal Islamists are adamant  to provoke yet another war because they stubbornly believe their survival depends on one.

Without IR and with the establishment of a democracy, Iranians will not have to worry about wars, sanctions, abuse of human rights, executions of Iran's citizens in cold blood, destruction of their cultural heritage, devastation of their natural resources, depletion of their country's coffers, educational and gender apartheid and countless other problems they are currently dealing with.

بترکه چشم حسود و بخیل، اسفند دود کنید برای ایران عزیز

///// 

////

اقلیم پارس را غم از آسیب دهر نیست

تا بر سرش بود چو تویی سایه خدا

امروز کس نشان ندهد در بسیط خاک

مانند آستان درت مأمن رضا

بر تست پاس خاطر بیچارگان و شکر

بر ما و بر خدای جهان آفرین جزا

یا رب ز باد فتنه نگهدار خاک پارس

چندان که خاک را بود و باد را بقا

 ---------------

بترکد چشم حسود بخیل، اسفند دود کنید برای بقا و سلامتی ایران عزیز،  تا کور شود هرآنکه نتوان دید 

IRI should stick with Cuban stem cell technology, instead of ...

N.Korean Nuclear technology.

This Nuclear thing is bad, bad, bad for their bassiji "scientists" well being, and their tight passages. Mo. Gaddafi would tell them so...

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Dear ROTPC: Unless we, including you, are willing….

To accept the consequences of a military attack on the nuclear facility as if our family members and loved ones are affected as equally, we (including you) have no right to wish them on others.  In another word, think about it as if your son, daughter, wife or husband works there.  Will you wish for it to be bombed?

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Masoud Kazemzadeh

In this comment, there was nowhere that I said anything "Against" homosexuals. You are therefore accusing me for something I didn't do. I don't know why you are so mad, I have NOTHING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, and you should not feel hurt.

real numbers

I know I will cause a lot of anger by this, but let me just tell you some numbers:

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-bomb blasts killed about 200 000 people, mainly by the thermal/mechanical effects. The radiation itself was responsible for a very smal number of casualities. In particular, the risk to die from cancer is fundamentally overrated. The A-bomb radiation caused about 600 extra cancer cases among the survivors, as compared to 20 000 cancer cases which appeared by natural causes. You can find these numbers at UNSCEAR (UN scientific council on the effect of atomic radiation), ICRP (International Commission for Radiation Protection) and RERF (Japanese-US Radiation Effects Research Foundation). An "accident" at a nuclear facility (like Chernobyl, Harrisburg, Fukushima, or Quom) without any doubt will cause much less victims than the blast of a nuclear bomb. Dont forget, a weapon is a weapon, it is designed to kill as many people as possible.

And if there is no other way to stop the development of nuclear weapons and its potential use, I would therefore opt for an attack on the production facilities. If I could turn back time, and would have the power to do so, I would also bomb Los Alamos this could have prevented  the development of the two US bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945.

Who cares?

"Unrelated to the article, I am strongly opposed to Israeli attacks on the fundamentalist regime's nuke facilities. My preferred option is to overthrow the fundamentalist terrorist regime. In other words, the solution is REGIME CHANGE. "

Who cares what you want?

Could we follow referring to correct references.

Dear All,

If we would like to write news. Could we respect the readers and stick to the base of jurnalism which is refereing to a correct reference? It will save readers time and bring more credit and trust to the Author.

Long Live IRAN for EVER, 

What is your reference? It seems information is not correct!

Dear Guive,

What is your reference when you wrote" in September 1980, two Iranian warplanes attacked and damaged the facility."

I just googled in Wikipedia aand it was written"...nuclear reactors bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991." There is no single word about Iranian attack to this facilities!!

 //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Nuclear_Research_Facility

And in Wikipedia about Bushehr power plant it is mentioned "The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes from 1984 to 1988, during the Iran–Iraq War"

 //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Long Live IRAN for EVER. 

Left has become IR's lawyer!

The left does not need to meddle in issues such as"legality of Israel's attack against IR"!!! Israel has the right to defend himself against any tyranny in Middle East and does not need any legal basis for its act!

Dear Guive

Dear Guive,

Thank you for the article. I liked reading the precedents. It appears to me that there are several "flaws" or "counter-points" to your arguments.

1. You are right to state that the UNSC harshly condemned Israel for the Osirak attacks. However, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, UNSCOM inspectors discovered that Saddam was able to hide vast amounts of his nuclear WEAPONS programs from the earlier IAEA inspectors. In 1992, it was said that Iraq was about 1 year from developing its nuclear weapons program. It appears to me that the lesson of the discovery of this was that in actual fact, then Israel was right to pre-emptively attack Osiraq and the UNSC was WRONG in condemning Israel’s pre-emptive attacks of Iraq’s nuclear facilities.

2. Perhaps, this also explains that there was no UNSC resolution condemning Israel for the 2007 attack on Syria’s nuclear facility. Yes, Mohammad Al Baradei criticized Israel. But many no longer consider El Baradei as an honest neutral person. The facts about the IRI’s nuclear programs which have been released confirm the great lack of objectivity of El Baradei. El Baradei himself said that due to POLITICAL and partisan reasons, he changed the wording like 80 times so as not to state bluntly the weapons nature of the IRI’s nuclear program. He said that if he wrote bluntly about the data, that would provide ammunition for the Bush administration to attack the IRI. Therefore, El Baradei distorted and undermined the professional nature of the IAEA reports to undermine the Bush administration and help the fundamentalist terrorist regime. And subsequently, the IAEA found traces of nuclear materials in Syria. And the Assad regime then BANNED the IAEA from further inspections of Syria.

3. As you mention that UNSC did not condemn Iran for making the Sept 1980 attacks on Osiraq because there existed a condition of war between IRI and Iraq. Could Israel claim that there exists a state of war between the IRI and Israel now. For example, the IRI is believed to have carried out terrorist attacks against Israelis in Georgia, India, and Thailand. Can Israel consider these acts as casus belli?

4. There are at numerous IAEA Board of Governors and 4 UNSC resolutions against the IRI demanding an immediate suspension of uranium enrichment. The IRI is thus is violation of the UNSC, thus is violating international law.

5. Could Israel argue that not only it is in a state of war with the IRI, but that the IAEA and UNSC means were already exhausted in a long period from 2002? That all the sanctions of the UNSC failed to compel the IRI to follow the IAEA and UNSC mandates.

6. Could Israel claim that its attacks on the IRI’s nuclear facilities were legitimate and legal pre-emptive attacks?

7. Could Israel argue that such attacks were actually the least violent means to stop the far greater violence that nuclear weapons in the hands of a genocidal fanatic terrorist regime like the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran would have caused? In other words, considering the martyrdom ideology of the Shia fundamentalist regime, deterrence and containment would not work with the fundamentalist regime. That possession of nukes by IRI might, in all likelihood, lead to nuclear exchange, which could cause the deaths of 70 million Iranians, and about 7 million Israelis, and about 4 million Palestinians.

8. In conclusion, it appears to me that the IAEA FAILED to compel the fundamentalist regime to abide by its Board of Governors decisions. That the UNSC failed to compel the fundamentalist regime to abide by the UNSC resolutions. And that due to the Russian and Chinese veto, the UNSC could not pass real strong resolutions imposing real strong economic sanctions on the fundamentalist regime similar to those imposed on the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. Therefore, there is NO other method to stop the fundamentalist regime but the military strikes. And considering the state of war between the IRI and Israel, couldn’t Israel argue that it has the right under the doctrine of pre-emption of imminent threat to use military strikes against the IRI?

Again, I thank you for this article. It appears to me (as a political scientist and not as an expert of international law), that your arguments do NOT convince me that the UNSC would take a vote and condemn Israel for attacking the IRI’s nuclear facilities. In other words, it appears to me that the Israelis could make an argument that their attacks are legitimate self-defense against a genocidal fanatic regime whose slogan has been "Marg bar Israel" from possessing the means to carry out their genocidal official slogans. Thus, I am not convinced that the UNSC would condemn an Israeli attack on the fundamentalist regime’s nuke facilities as against international law.

Best,

Masoud

P.S.  Unrelated to the article, I am strongly opposed to Israeli attacks on the fundamentalist regime's nuke facilities.  My preferred option is to overthrow the fundamentalist terrorist regime.  In other words, the solution is REGIME CHANGE.

//iranian.com/main/b

The supplemented and counter arguments given ….

By Mr. Mohammad Alireza, in my opinion, are very valid points that gives another dimension to such adventure, the potential unforeseen disaster that could affect large number of civilian.   This somehow resembles like the [infamous] comment by Tucker Carlson recently where he first advocated the annihilation of Iran and then in back tracking move, he was rejecting it due to the [negative] effect it will have on the US economy.

  However, I still applaud Mr. Guive Mirfendereski to speak against an illegal attack by Israel.  And as a point of compare and contrast between Israel and Iran internal affairs, we can see an ex-Iranian living in Israel can write clearly in opposition to their government’s potential plan against an adversary and could only imagine if a Jewish person in Iran was going to write such article in opposition to IRI plan and how he would be received [in Evin]

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Dear Mr. Mirfendereski

Aren't you the same person who was keeping score between the US & IRI re the nuclear issue and proudly proclaiming the IRI ahead in the score?

What is the score today Mr. Mirfenderski? I wonder how the following have effected the score:

1) Sham elections of 2009

2) Sanctions and their effects on the IRI economy

3) Constant attacks on IRI scientists 

4) IRI terror agents getting caught in Asia with bomb making material 

5) Israelis getting X radar & F35s

6) IRI about to lose its main evil axis ally Syria

What is the score? 

I understand that many Iranians have an oghdeh and really want Iran to win. 

I have an oghdeh and I want Iran to win as well. I  want Iran to win very much Mr. Mirfenderski. 

However, the IRI is not Iran and it does not represent Iranians. The nuclear power produced and the potential weaponization of such power is not for the benefit Iranians. Its only for the benefit of the Mullahs and their crazy ideology which I am sure you do not share.

Once you realize this and accept that the IRI is not Iran, you will  realize how you have been miscalculating the score between the US & the IRI. You are also miscalculating on the parties who desire the destruction of this potential nuclear power in the hands of the IRI. 

Ostaad Guive M. for the very well-researched reasons articulated

above military strikes on the IRR nuclease sites for an effective, ultimate and disabling blow may require at least 100,000,000 sorties by the entire US, Brits, French, and Israeli Air Forces!

Even then, who really cares as to who was recognized/blamed as the perpetrator of the assault in the eyes of the International communities.

That's why the only viable and practical solution to the IRR predicament is a sustained level of massive and I mean massive military strikes on its targets such as Khamenei's headquarters, Ahmadinejad's headquarters, IRR Majles when in full session, IRGC, Basiji, and every and each of its centers of power, finance, support and logistics.

Of course, all these should be followed by an invasion of at least 500,000 soldiers on the ground. The estimate of the number of soldiers on the ground is very close to the estimate the late Shah of Iran quoted during the 1980 interview with David Frost.

This would hopefully secure the nuclear stuff from getting in the hands of the bad guys (I know, it is sort of oxymoron since it is already in the hands of the bad guys!)

Dear Dr. Guive M. I am a Dentist. In this position, I have to apply sound, practical, and seeing-the-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel solutions to my patients. If a tooth can not be treated with filling, root canal, or other remedies one must yank it out once and for all!

In summary, yes to military strikes on IRR centers of power except the nuclear facilities!

Thank you sir for your attention!

Guive

Your introduction is flawed so much that it overshadows the rest of your article:

The Iranian attack on Osirak was not technically a preemptive attack as in weeks earlier many Iranian infrastructures been indiscriminately and preemptively bombed by Iraqis leaving many Iranian civilian casualties. Iran's most humane reaction to the attack was to attack the military and industrial sites rather than targeting the civilians.

I see your article and the weight of your introduction as a green light to a preemptive attack to Iranian nuclear facilities as the rest of your article fails to seriously oppose such an action.

I say, nice try bud! 

Mr. Alireza, Thank you

for scaring Information. 

Focus on present not past....

The title of your scholarly article refers to Iran but the text focuses entirely on Iraq. Why?

Here are some links and excerpts for why Iranian nuclear sites should not be bombed:

"Fallout from the use of RNEP against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran would spread for thousands of miles across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. It would kill 3 million people within 2 weeks of the explosion and expose 35 million to cancer causing radiation."

//www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_s...

"Reactors and enrichment facilities are built of extra strong concrete, often with multiple layers of containment domes, often built underground. Bombing such facilities will require powerful explosives, earth penetrator war heads, maybe nuclear warheads. The explosions will blow the contamination high into the atmosphere. Where will it go is a question that is difficult to predict."

"The nuclear fallout from bombing Iran will have a half life of 700 million years."

//globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=...

“My calculations are that up to 9 or 10 million people could be killed with that type bomb.”

//www.ananuclear.org/Senatelowyield.html

“However, the number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million.”

//www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weap...

Even though some of these studies refer to RNEP's modern "bunker busters" that have been sold to Israel will have a similar outcome but with less fallout.

Finally, the question, "is attacking Iran legally defensible" is not an issue that would concern a country threatening a war crime. More to the point would be if the attack would be morally and environmentally defensible.