Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

[nycfan]

Here’s a solid article about the legality of this type of strike (published a day before the attack took place):

The Law of Going to War With Iran

Right or wrong, the executive branch likely thinks Trump has the legal authority to do it—at least until Congress or the courts say otherwise.

www.lawfaremedia.org

“… Both customary international law and the UN Chartergenerally prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Article 51 of the charter, however, makes clear that this restriction is not intended to “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a [state.]” While the United States might be able to justify some military actions against Iran on the basis of individual self-defense, the more straightforward legal justification for joining Israel’s military campaign against Iran would be to do so on the basis of collective self-defense, wherein Israel would consent to the United States assisting it in exercising its own individual right of self-defense. Whether this option is available, however, will depend on how the Trump administration views the legality of the military campaign Israel is pursuing. …”

——
Hegseth expressly cited collective self-defense in his prepared statement this morning. Not saying it is a legit argument (since I think it hinges on the legality of the Israeli action in the first instance), just noting that the Trump team is going through the motions on this defense.

 

[Paine]

In the eyes of most of the region and the rest of the world, our hands are dirty any time Israel takes military action.

I understand that our direct involvement was necessitated because we have the munitions needed for this. That said, people keep saying that we have the only bomb that could penetrate this mountain fortress, but that is not entirely true. We have the only CONVENTIONAL weapon that (we think — it had never been used in a real conflict) can do the job. Nuclear weapons could also destroy the Fordow facility. We don’t want anyone with nuke taking that action, I don’t think.

Anyway, I understand your points. I have been very conflicted about this and fully admit my instinct here could be completely misguided. I hope the U.S. and our allies don’t pay a heavy price if so.

This is the liberal hawk two-step: express moral discomfort, then walk yourself into supporting escalation anyway. “We had to do it because Israel would have done worse” isn’t a justification, it’s a surrender to militarism. And reducing the decision to which bomb is more “surgical” skips the bigger question entirely: why are we normalizing preemptive strikes on sovereign nations in the first place?

Saying “our hands are already dirty” doesn’t absolve anything, it just confirms that we keep doing the same thing and dressing it up as reluctant necessity. You say you’re conflicted, but the logic you’re deploying is the same logic that’s been used to justify every disastrous intervention of the past 30 years.

 

[theel4life]

Trump is the beta bully who walks by the alpha bully (putin) beats up a 3rd grader (iran) and struts like a peacock. Pathetic.

Aka a pussy

 

[wmheel1287]

People getting worked up that Iran wasn’t close to a nuke are missing the point. Let it play out. If there’s no escalation from here, this strike was a total success.

There will be major escalation from here. Tens of thousands of Americans both in and out of uniform will die. The economy will be battered heavily.

 

[nycfan]

Here’s a solid article about the legality of this type of strike (published a day before the attack took place):

The Law of Going to War With Iran

Right or wrong, the executive branch likely thinks Trump has the legal authority to do it—at least until Congress or the courts say otherwise.

www.lawfaremedia.org

“… Both customary international law and the UN Chartergenerally prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Article 51 of the charter, however, makes clear that this restriction is not intended to “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a [state.]” While the United States might be able to justify some military actions against Iran on the basis of individual self-defense, the more straightforward legal justification for joining Israel’s military campaign against Iran would be to do so on the basis of collective self-defense, wherein Israel would consent to the United States assisting it in exercising its own individual right of self-defense. Whether this option is available, however, will depend on how the Trump administration views the legality of the military campaign Israel is pursuing. …”

——
Hegseth expressly cited collective self-defense in his prepared statement this morning. Not saying it is a legit argument (since I think it hinges on the legality of the Israeli action in the first instance), just noting that the Trump team is going through the motions on this defense.

Anyway, on the domestic front:

“…
The executive branch has—over frequent objections by legal scholars—long maintained that the president has substantial independent constitutional authority to direct the use of military force against foreign adversaries. While some presidents have claimed a near plenary ability to pursue such action, most recent presidential administrations—including Trump’s during his first term—have generally described this authority as extending, “at least insofar as Congress has not specifically restricted it,” to situations where the president determines (a) military action would “serve sufficiently important national interests” and (b) the “nature, scope, and duration” of anticipated military operations will not “constitute a war requiring prior specific congressional approval under the Declaration of War Clause.” In addition, during his first term, Trump’s Justice Department suggestedthat the president “has the constitutional authority to take defensive measures to protect U.S. persons” in a manner not subject to these same constraints, but the exact scope of this national self-defense exception remains unclear.

Congress has “specifically restricted” this authority in one regard: As part of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it requires that, once U.S. armed forces are “introduced … into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances[,]” the president must “terminate” the use of those forces within 60 days (extendable to 90 days in certain circumstances), unless Congress has “enacted a specific authorization for such use[,]” extended the time period by statute, or is physically unable to meet. While some past presidents have suggested that this restriction is unconstitutional, more recent executive branch assessments have generally disagreed, at least outside the context of the national self-defense exception.…”

——
If you view the bombing of the Iran nuclear facilities as an offensive rather than defensive action, then Trump probably acted illegally. But while this debate needs to play out for long term purposes, as a practical matter no way this Congress challenges this action.

 

[CFordUNC]

In a vacuum, I totally believe that eliminating or crippling Iran's nuclear weapon production capability is a good thing. They of all countries (or, rather, their regime) simply can't be allowed to have nukes, IMO. So, in a vacuum, I think that last night's strike was good and commend the President and his team for acting decisively to confront (and hopefully eliminate) a problem that has plagued many a presidential administration through the years.

What concerns me, though, is that only in the movies or in the fantasy realm does a strike like this occur in a vacuum. In other words, anyone who thinks that Iran won't try to retaliate, IMO, is naïve or has their head buried in the sand. Whether or not Iran's retaliatory ability is legitimately threatening is a different question. It may be, it may not be.

My concern is that by directly striking Iran militarily, we open ourselves up to escalation against any and all U.S. targets abroad. And any U.S. targets that are, in fact, targeted would merit an even more escalatory retaliatory response militarily. So the question to me is, was it worth it? It very well may have been- I don't know. I don't pretend to know the answer. But my question is, was it worth striking Iran knowing that there is a probability that they or their proxies will attempt to shed U.S. blood- military or civilian- and thus prompt further military action from the U.S. (i.e., drawing us into a full-fledged shooting war, which has tremendous costs in terms of lives and capital).

As lynch34 says above, time will tell. We have to let it play out- that's all we can do at this point.

 

[CFordUNC]

There will be major escalation from here. Tens of thousands of Americans both in and out of uniform will die. The economy will be battered heavily.

Hey, look on the bright side, though. We're giving massive tax cuts to the rich at the exact same time as we may be launching yet another Middle Eastern war!

 

[nycfan]

There will be major escalation from here. Tens of thousands of Americans both in and out of uniform will die. The economy will be battered heavily.

I think it is one possible risk but it is far from a certainty.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

If Israel had done such a great job weakening Iran, why did we need to get involved? Why not just let them finish the job? We could have had the same result without the need to dirty our hands.

This has been answered several times. We are the only country with the bunker busting bombs needed to complete this mission.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

There will be major escalation from here. Tens of thousands of Americans both in and out of uniform will die. The economy will be battered heavily.

None of this will happen. Iran is completely powerless.

 

[Wheels81]

What is the over/under on the price of gallon of Gas this 4th of July?

We’ll be told it is $1.99.

 

[lawtig02]

None of this will happen. Iran is completely powerless.

These two posts together are a great example of the point. NOBODY knows what will happen from here. Nobody on this board knows. Trump sure as hell doesn’t know. That’s terrifying to me, but anyone saying with certainly how this will turn out is just way, way premature.

 

[wmheel1287]

I think it is one possible risk but it is far from a certainty.

Sure...the folks who were so insane that they had to be attacked to prevent their ultimate use of doomsday weapons against us are just gonna back away from this sort of thing.

Even the most ardent believers within Iran that their government should be overthrown are waking up today despising America far more than they otherwise would have. They will strike and they will strike hard. They'll hit the worldwide petroleum economy first. If they are as crazy as you believe, they will destroy their own oil fields and launch strikes against those of surrounding nations. After all...they're suicidal and crazy right?

This justification nonsense is lunacy.

We have no fucking business attacking other sovereign nations and we absolutely will pay a heavy price for doing so.

 

[aGDevil2k]

Will be interesting to see how his fans take to this...
Nothing says focus on America like voluntary jumping into a war that is none of our business

 

[dukeman92]

This isn’t a war.

 

[theel4life]

There will be major escalation from here. Tens of thousands of Americans both in and out of uniform will die. The economy will be battered heavily.

This has been answered several times. We are the only country with the bunker busting bombs needed to complete this mission.

What if they moved the stuff

None of this will happen. Iran is completely powerless.

They have terrorists all around the world. Including on US soil. Don’t be naive.

 

[wmheel1287]

None of this will happen. Iran is completely powerless.

You're a goddamed fool if you think any nation with the history, populace, and wealth of Iran is going to be "powerless".

 

[Paine]

You're a goddamed fool if you think any nation with the history, populace, and wealth of Iran is going to be "powerless".

100%. One of the biggest mistakes we could make right now is treating Iran like another Iraq. Iraq was a disaster. Iran would be worse. Bigger country, deeper history, stronger national identity, and no colonial fault lines to exploit. Iran isn’t a failed state; it’s a nation with pride, memory, and a network of allies. Thinking we can bomb our way to a cleaner future there is pure imperial fantasy.

 

[Zoo_View]

Iran might not be able to completely close the Straits of Hormuz with mines; but, it can wreak havoc.

Part of Iran’s southern coastline wraps around the cape opposite it. Iran has hundreds of miles of coastline on the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

You're a goddamed fool if you think any nation with the history, populace, and wealth of Iran is going to be "powerless".

Have you not been following the news over the past few months? Do you think they are letting Israel completely dominate them by choice? Maybe they are sadists? Of course not. Their military has no offensive capabilities left. Their proxies - namely Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Syria - are all effectively dismantled. We have total air superiority over all of Iran. Their launchers have nearly all been eliminated. The most they can do is rage on Twitter, which is exactly what they have been doing. They are done.

In the GWOT, which lasted over 20 years and involved us actually invading two countries, we lost approximately 7,500 troops. We aren't going to lose "tens of thousands" of troops from an airstrike on a defenseless enemy unless they all simultaneously die of boredom while waiting for Iran to respond.