WOULD A UNILATERAL ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN BE LEGAL? by Craig Chappell

In recent months the eyes of the world have become very much fixated on the Middle East and in particular the tense situation between Israel and Iran. Israel has long viewed Iran as an existential threat to the Jewish State’ survival and in the eyes of Benjamin Netanyahu, a nuclear Iran would effectively spell Armageddon. So to this effect he has publicly warned of a possible imminent strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities, either with or without US support, but would this be legal in International Law?

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace in the International Community and allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security". Now, Israel is a member of the United Nations, as is Iran yet it has not managed to acquire a seat on the UN Security Council, these belong to China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States who are the five permanent members. They have all warned against “catastrophic” military action by Israel on Iran over fears that it could herald a new “Cold War” and set the most volatile region in the world “on fire”. So it is clear, nobody (except the US as a final option) is condoning military action---yet and it is clear that a UNSC Resolution authorising an attack is unlikely to be drawn up and agreed on. In terms of the legality of a Unilateral Israeli attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, especially Fordow, it would be complicated but not impossible for Israel to say “We are acting legally”. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for the right of countries to engage in self-defence, including collective self-defence, against an armed attack. This wording is of particular importance, note the phrase “against an armed attack”, Iran has not attacked Israel in any way (unless you count attacks on Israeli Diplomats recently) and this raises the question could Israel act in self-defence against a possible nuclear strike by Iran? Interestingly the Charter has been cited by the US during the Vietnam War when they said "although South Vietnam is not an independent sovereign State or a member of the United Nations, it nevertheless enjoys the right of self-defense, and the United States is entitled to participate in its collective defense" and to this effect Israel also enjoys the right of self-defence and it is therefore implied that an attack against Iran, although it would most certainly mean possible regional or global reprisals, would be legal, especially if the US supports it in some way. To further complicate the issue President Obama has recently declared he ‘has Israel’s back’ and has warned of a military strike on the Islamic Republic should sanctions fail to stop Iran’s globally disputed Nuclear Program. Both Obama and Netanyahu will ‘never allow a nuclear armed Iran’ due to it sponsoring terrorism and the risks that this provides. In conclusion, a pre-emptive attack by Israel would be legitimate for two reasons. The first being that Iran is conducting armed attacks under the plain meaning of Article 51 through terrorist groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Second, even if one questions whether armed attacks have occurred (by dismissing Iran’s use of Hamas and Hezbollah), Iran’s possible development of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an imminent, existential threat to Israel in the eyes of Benjamin Netanyahu. On a final note, none of us, whether we are Israeli, American or British should become complacent as to the threat that a nuclear armed Iran would pose not only to Israel but to the entire Western world. I have no doubt that in the coming months countries around the world will be deciding whether they would act with Israel, defend Iran or simply stay on the side-lines in any conflict between these two lasting enemies.