The president of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel – for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.
E.g. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel
Can this, under international law, be considered a declaration of war?
When the leader of one nation calls for the destruction of another nation and comes with slightly veiled threats on how it is to be done, is the threatened nation justified in taking military steps, also offensive, to protect itself?
Nyeh. I doubt it counts as any sort of, you know, notification that they’re pissed off at Israel. It’s not like Israel will reply “BUT YOU TOLD ME YOU LOVED ME!” or anything.
As for providing a casus belli? It’s not like Israel has asked permission or needed overt acts before. If Iran gets more playful than the idle threat level I’m sure Israel will be GLAD to give them some caliber-style affection.
Hell, politically they might get US help on the project.
Whether or not a nation is “justified” is irrelevant. If a nation feels threatened and has the means, it will and should certainly pre-empt an attack. Such an attack would be an act of war and wars always are costly.
At the end of the day, whether a country takes aggressive military steps or not will depend on how credible and immediate the threat is. In the case of Iran sabre rattling against Israel, I would say not immediate and not credible. In other words, Israel is not going to roll up on Iran just because their president talks a bunch of shit.
I think it can be considered a declaration of the second Tuesday of the month.
International law allows military action if a nation is under attack or explicit threat of attack, or after a UN Security Council resolution explicitly sanctioning “any means necessary”: such was the case for Kuwait (attacked) and the US (UNSC explicit sanction) in Gulf I.The question here would be if Israel took military action, would it/ be contrary to international law? I think Israel could make a good case that it was under threat, unlike another recent instance of military action I could mention in which no explicit “any means necessary” UNSC resolution was passed.
I’m wondering what this gets him politically on balance? Spinning up Israel has it’s risks and rewards. There’s something else, pushing somewhere else that’s responsible for this. Is he just re-asserting his hard line reputation or what? What is he responding to tactically in Iranian politics that prompted this?
Iran either has, or is attempting to gain the Bomb.
No jokes. 
Too grim.
Probably the fact that he’s being undercut at every oppotunity by his own party and by the Mullahs. Poor Ahmadinejad has watched Parliament shoot down four of his candidates for cabinet ministers and delay some of the centerpieces to his proposed social policy, even though his party controls the legislature. Ayatollah Khamenei has been elevating Ahmadinejad’s political rivals (including those he defeated for the presidency) to politically influential positions like the Mayor of Tehran and the Expediency Council, which “supervises” the other branches of government and keeps them in line. Another political rival, Rafsanjani, was sent by the Ayatollah to Saudi Arabia to help assuage fears about Iran’s intent in Iraq, leading to Ahmadinejad’s own envoy to be snubbed by the Saudis and Rafsanjani will likely be sent to deal with the IAEA.
I suspect Ahmadinejad is trying to reassert his hardline revolutionary credentials with his party and the Mullahs. Which is probably a mistake since a big reason he’s being undercut is that some powerful people feel he’s too ideological to be trusted to handle things on his own. Of course, he’s also seriously cracking down on corruption within the government and bureaucracy, which doesn’t endear him to anyone.
The same being true of Israel, of course. One can only hope that all this is simple grandstanding similar to (although more extreme than) that of those other two recent nuclear powers Pakistan and India over Jammu-Kashmir.
The guy spews forth this kind of rubish and then wonders why the rest of the world doesn’t want him to have nukes???
Iran has been at war with Israel since the Revolution. This statement makes no difference at all. The fact we do not take the guy at is word is sort of like that old German guy, you know the one with the bad hair. We did not believe him either.
So, how is the normalization of relations with the EU going?
Cite? Or is that just your opinion?
Or Iraqi politics? Now that the stage is set for heavily Iranian-influenced Islamist politics among the Shi’ite majority in Iraq, this might be viewed as an opportunity to whip up reactionary sentiment against what is perceived as the US/Israel axis of occupation, in order to encourage the election of theocratic hardliners in December.
Are you referring to the US military action against Serbia in the 90s? 
Dear God, is that it? :eek:
They don’t remember who invaded Iran? Or do they blame that on the Shi’ites as well? Or the International Zionist Conspiracy, or whatever. They seem to be taking their foreign relation cues from Kim Jong-il.
And the chance that the Middle East becomes a sheet of radioactive glass sometime in the next ten years just went up another 5%.
Regards,
Shodan
Huh? Did you just whoosh me? (It’s easy to do, alas!) The Iranians are (mostly) Shi’ites. They’re happy that Iraq is now mostly controlled by a Shi’ite majority whose leaders, political parties, and militias have close ties to Iran. And they will probably be even happier if an energized Iraqi Shi’a majority becomes even more militantly opposed to Israel and its allies.
As astro and Neurotic said already, each time Muslim politician starts about Israel, search for clues elsewhere.
Example: Saddam unleashed huge anti_Israel campaign in 1990 just before attacking Kuwait.
It’s paradoxical that Iran would call for Israel to be “wiped off the map” as Israel does not appear on Iranian maps in the first place. The country does not exist in Iran. It would be a little surprising to me if Ahmadinejad even used the word “Israel” in his diatribe. Israel is usually referred to as the “zionist regime” by the Iranian government and in the the Iranian press.
At any rate, this represents no change in Iranian policy.
The problem with Iran wiping Israel off the map is that Israel’s military could clean Iran’s clock any day of the week and twice on Sundays, so I put this down to mere posturing.
The UN Charter, to which all countries at the Assembly are signatories: Chapter VII deals with UNSC involvement in disputes, Article 51 being relevant in this specific case.
Wel, more recent actually, but I do accept that that contravened international law in this way also. I advocate a new UN resolution that evidence of ongoing genocide (or some other current, time-sensitive humanitarian crisis) should not need explicit UNSC “any means necessary” sanction. Of course, I also know who’d veto it, but even a brick wall eventually comes down if enough people beat their head against it.