On To Iran
David Rifkin and Lee Casey in today's WaPo, on A Legal Case Against Iran:
When a clear threat to peace arises, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to act in defense of the threatened party to head off the unilateral use of force and to advance "collective security." This imperative is particularly compelling when the very legitimacy of the threatened party and its right to independent national existence have been challenged. Such a challenge goes beyond the violation of Article 2.4 and raises the specter of the most heinous international crimes, including genocide.In 2002, the same duo in the WSJ's OpinionJoural on how We Have the Right To Oust Saddam:
Moreover, separate from Saddam's past regional misdeeds--and even assuming that he had no involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks--his dedicated efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, combined with his open hostility towards the U.S. and its allies, would alone justify American military action against Iraq. Under the international law doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense," states may take preemptive action against an enemy before an actual attack.Now I realize that they're lawyers, and in the court a lawyer is not obliged to refrain from reusing a previous argument even if it ended up a loser. But as pundits wouldn't even a speck of humility chasten them from goading us into attacking Iran? They don't think to themselves - or discuss among themselves - about how Iraq ended up not having any WMD, how they obviously weren't involved in 9/11 or with Al Qaeda, and how the war has ended up one big f-ing mess, and maybe they might not want to get all self-confidently hawkish on Iran? I guess not.