Well, I suppose the fact we have the power to do something give us a sort of ‘right’. We have the ‘right’ to defend ourselves and our interests…and a nuclear armed Iran can certainly be perceived as a threat to both the US and its interests.
However, in this case there are several none proliferations treaties that would back us…not to mention the possibility of UNSC backing and resolutions (if they are given teeth and lay out a clear position for a change) that would not only give us (and other nations) the ‘right’ but make it our duty to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability.
-XT
Read the linked article – the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prohibit enrichment of uranium. Under international law, the Iranians have a perfect right to do what they’re doing.
Yes I know…but there are other aspects that COULD apply. Hell, I suppose you could simply invoke the self defense aspects of the Charter for that matter BG. You know that where there is a will, there is a way for these kinds of adventures…always has been, especially for the select circle in the UNSC.
-XT
Is it true that Saddam Hussein has a book deal going for his autobiography, entitled “Iran Iraq” ?
The IAEA has issued a statement ‘demanding’ that the Iranians halt their nuclear program. If the Iranians do not do so, the U.N. could pass a resolution calling for the inforcement of the IAEA’s demand. That would give the U.S. the ‘right’.
No, but it is true that he he’s signed a contract to play himself in an upcoming episode of South Park! 
Well, no, it would not. It would give them the “right” if the UN resolution specifically called for military force, and the U.S. used such force in accordance with the wording of the resolution (e.g. exhausting all diplomatic options, which would certainly be in the resolution and which the U.S. has a history of skipping over to get to the shooting part.)
Every nation has the right to defend its people and its territory – but where is it written that a nation has any right to defend its “interests”? That kind of thinking could justify the U.S. occupying every oil-producing country on Earth just because our national economy can’t run without gasoline.
The problem is that the real world has always been more complex. In very real was defending a nations interests IS defending the nation. Think about it. Cut off a modern nations oil supply and its a more effective attack than something more direct. In ancient times cut off a nation from a vital natural resource and you cripple that nation the same as if you raided directly into it. The US doesn’t need to occupy every nation with oil…they only need to make it clear that its vital to our national interest. And guess what? Its not just the US that stakes out this claim and is prepared to back it with force if needs demand such a response.
But we are talking about a potential NUCLEAR weapon program here, not just defending the US’s oil interests…and a nuclear weapons program in the heart of where the industrial world gets its oil. Its a big deal, not just to the US but to the world. It IS in the US’s vital national interest to disuade Iran from aquiring a nuclear weapon…and its also in the worlds vital interest too.
-XT
No doubt. But there’s no reason why we have any right to use force to take what we need.
Why? After all, no nuclear-armed nation has actually used its nukes since 1945. And why has Iran any less right to its own nuclear arsenal than the U.S. has?
To expand on the above: Consider the example of Kim Jong Il. He must be entirely aware that there is no offensive use he could make of his nukes that would not result in total destruction of himself and his regime. He must also be aware that his possession of nuclear weapons is his surest guarantee against a U.S. invasion. It’s just like the U.S.-Soviet stalemate during the Cold War, only less symmetrical. And I’m sure the Iranian leaders are perfectly capable of seeing both points just as clearly: They can’t afford to use nuclear weapons, but neither can they afford not to have them, not if they want to be safe.
Its all about stability in the end. How stable is NK? How stable is their government and their leadership? What kind of checks and balances do they have on possible nuclear deployments? Afaik, its pretty much at the whim of Kim himself…if he decides to nuke something, unless someone puts a bullet in his head it gets nuked. In addition, what if his government fragments (which is a very real possibility)? Who gets control then? What happens to the weapons?
When/if Kerry wins, we get an orderly change of power with zero risk that Kerry will sell the weapons off to the highest bidder, decide to arbitrarily nuke the evil Dutch, or that any loss of control of the weapons will result…the same can’t be said for the North Koreas and Iran’s of the world. Hell, look how nervous Pakistan has made the world because IT has the bomb. What happens if Musharraf’s government goes tits up? Who will get control of the weapons then? What happens if the entire country goes Taliban (not likely, but could happen)? Once a nation gets nuclear weapons its very difficult to get them to give them up, so the trick is to TRY and prevent new nations from getting them. Every new nation that aquires nuclear weapons increases the possibility that your stat about them only being used twice and not at all since the 40’s being thrown out the window. And the world community has a vested stake in keeping its cities from going up in nuclear fire.
-XT
All that is a clear statement of our interest in keeping nukes out of Iranian hands, but this thread is about the question of our right to take violent action to achieve that end.
Here, let’s turn it around: If you were an Iranian – an ordinary Iranian loyal to your country’s established government – would you want your country to have the bomb or not? And what would be your reaction if I suggested Iran has no “right” to a nuclear arsenal, or that America has the “right” to bomb Iran to destroy its nuke program? I think you would argue (among other and much more loud and shrill points) that Iran is just as much an independent sovereign state as America is, and every sovereign state has the right to arm itself in its own defense.
Furthermore, even the question of our interest is debatable. From the article linked in the OP:
I suggest that, regardless of the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, U.S. intervention is in nobody’s interest if the conflict is likely to escalate. And it will.
Great , we are back to the U.N again , now that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
But no , the UN security council would at most issue a resolution , authorizing sanctions and what not , using force is probably the last thing that would the UN would authorize.
And the American Govt does not need someone to give them the right , its nice to have , but not needed.
Declan
You are simply assuming we have the “right” to bomb Iran in the first place – but that is the proposition we are supposed to be debating in this thread. Try again.
Its already been done BG
Thats just Iran
Then there is operation El Dorado Canyon , for libya
Shelling the coast of lebanon with the New Jersey 16 inch guns , Bombing Iraqi targets enforcing the no fly zones etc.
In other words , the US has that right.
I imagine that people are getting hung up on some legal code that does not exist , when it comes to rights. Unless some other entity comes along and asserts its right to smack down the US , then this is a case of closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out.
Declan
I read recently that several (unamed) members of the UNSC don’t want even a mere resolution condemning Iran to pass, in order to avoid giving a pretext for a potential new US military adventure.
This would appear to contribute nothing to the thread. That the US attacked Iran in 1988 in no way grants them the right to attack Iran now.
The U.S. also shot down a civilian airliner in 1988. Does that grant the U.S. the right to shoot down civilian airliners? Iraq invaded Iran in 1980; does Iraq have the right to invade its neighbours?
It’s all a moot point in reality. The Israeli’s will surely bomb it if the Russian’s don’t. All it’ll take is nothing more than “line ball evidence” that Iran has been meddling in Chechenya and bye bye Iranian Nuke Program. And I bet you London to a brick that no-one, absolutely no-one will cry a river of tears on Iran’s behalf.
Also, I’m absolutely convinced that already, the CIA is helping Russia’s FSB to establish such a link. After the Beslan School Massacre, Russia in thoroughly entitled to suspect the worst of everyone in her neighbourhood.
And then all the War Game estimates get thrown out. If Russia bombs Iran’s nuke program, the Western World wins and Russia wins and then it becomes a question of who’s gonna take on Russia AND the Western World at the same time? How do you escalate a conflict where it’s profoundly obvious you’re gonna get the shit pummelled out of you? From both sides?
So, at the nation-state level, “rights” don’t exist because democracy doesn’t exist at the nation-state level - merely occasional mutual self interest. In short, there is no profitable end-game for Iran now that Russia and the USA are becoming increasingly aligned in their persuit of battling terrorism.