Magazine | December 31, 2011, Issue

An Unavoidable Challenge

Now is the time to make the case for military action against Iran

Our political calendar and one of our nation’s greatest threats have synchronized. In the upcoming year, the American people will render their judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. Meanwhile, if the International Atomic Energy Agency’s November report is accurate, Iran will soon join the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers. Because of the Obama administration’s reluctance to confront this looming threat, others — such as the Republican presidential candidates — must begin preparing the case for a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

Republican frontrunners have seized upon the threat. In last month’s South Carolina debate, Mitt Romney promised that Iran “will not have a nuclear weapon” under his presidency. Economic sanctions and aid to internal opposition come first, said the former Massachusetts governor, but “if all else fails . . . [and] there’s nothing else we can do besides take military action, then of course you take military action.”

Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in several early states, heartily agrees. In the South Carolina debate, Gingrich proposed covert operations, including “taking out their scientists” and “breaking up their systems,” and a Cold War–style strategy “of breaking the regime and bringing it down.” But the former House speaker “agree[s] entirely” with Romney that, should pressure fail, “you have to take whatever steps are necessary” to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In this game of diplomatic poker, the Republicans would go all in where the last administration and the present one have checked. Though he declares that “we don’t take any options off the table,” President Obama avoids explicit military threats. Instead he seeks to “isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime.” He naïvely hoped to negotiate a settlement with Tehran (and Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea!), but he has ended up in the same place as his predecessor. George W. Bush declined to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. He also passed on striking a suspected Syrian nuclear facility (the Israelis destroyed it in 2007). Like Obama, he pursued economic sanctions and applied political pressure to foster Iranian regime change.

President Obama has done more than merely delay the inevitable day of reckoning with Iran. He has left the public uninformed about the nature and possible consequences of military action, which must be serious and sustained enough to destroy complex, protected, and dispersed facilities — pinpoint bombing of a single facility will not end Iran’s nuclear program. Iran might respond by attacking Israel, Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia, and oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. President Obama has also failed to explain the heavy costs of containment, which would involve a constant, significant conventional and nuclear military presence on Iran’s perimeter.

Obama has compounded this political negligence by failing to build the legal case for attacking Iran. Instead, the administration has tethered American national security to the dictates of the United Nations. In Libya, Obama delayed launching the air war until the Security Council approved the intervention, allowing a popular revolution to metastasize into a prolonged, destructive civil war. The same craving for international approval may lead the administration to put off military action against Iran until it is too late.

#page#The U.N. Charter guarantees the “territorial integrity” and “political independence” of each member nation, and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense, which many scholars and international officials interpret to mean that force is prohibited except when an invader has attacked across a border or is about to do so. It does provide an exception for war to prevent threats to international peace and security, but only if approved by the Security Council (where the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China all have a veto). Not surprisingly, U.N. authorizations to use force are rare. China and Russia, both Security Council members, generally oppose intervention in what they consider “internal” affairs, including policies that repress political and economic freedoms. They can usually be counted on to protect other oppressive regimes by blocking U.N. approval for war, as they did in Iraq in 2003.

Just as national governments claim a monopoly on the use of force within their borders and in exchange offer police protection, the U.N. asks nations to give up their right to go to war and in exchange offers to police the world. But the U.N. has no armed forces of its own, has a crippled decision-making system, and lacks political legitimacy. It is contrary to both American national interests and global welfare because it subjects any intervention, no matter how justified or beneficial, to the approval of authoritarian nations.

Thankfully, the U.S. has not often waited for the Security Council’s permission to protect its interests. But if the president seeks U.N. authorization for a military action against Iran, his administration will have to make a case much like the one that the Bush administration made regarding Iraq. It can argue that destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons is a combination of self-defense and protecting international security. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an obvious enemy would constitute a grave threat to American interests. Even without them, Iran has fomented conflict in the region, supported groups hostile to Israel through its client state Syria, supported terrorists who target American allies such as Saudi Arabia, and attacked American troops in Iraq. It has also supported attacks on our embassies and military bases in places such as Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, planned to kill ambassadors on American soil, and of course taken our diplomatic officials hostage. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to escalate hostilities with little fear of any large-scale American military response. If Saddam Hussein had succeeded in his drive to build nuclear weapons, would the United States have gone to war in 1991 to protect a small, oil-rich sheikdom?

A president need not wait until an attack is imminent before taking action. Iranian nuclear capabilities would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power, and that fact justifies action in itself. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Pres. John F. Kennedy imposed a blockade, which is an act of war, though his legal advisers claimed it was a “quarantine” instead. Soviet nuclear missiles were not fueling on the launch pads, but President Kennedy used force because the Russian deployment upset the superpower equilibrium in the Western Hemisphere.

– Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He served in the Bush Justice Department from 2001 to 2003 and is the co-editor of Confronting Terror.

John Yoo — John Yoo is the Emanuel Heller professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, Point of ...

In This Issue

Articles

Politics & Policy

The String-Pullers

Barack Obama initially ran for president invoking Abraham Lincoln, then looked to Franklin D. Roosevelt and even appealed to Ronald Reagan. He began campaigning for reelection as Harry Truman running ...
Politics & Policy

An Unavoidable Challenge

Our political calendar and one of our nation’s greatest threats have synchronized. In the upcoming year, the American people will render their judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. Meanwhile, if the ...
Politics & Policy

The Z-Word

A few weeks ago, a Labour MP in Britain, Paul Flynn, expressed displeasure with his country’s ambassador to Israel. “I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories,” he said, “but ...

Features

Books, Arts & Manners

Politics & Policy

Tintin Triumphant

I first encountered Tintin, the Belgian comic-book artist Hergé’s immortal reporter-detective, while trailing behind my parents in one of the many pretentious secondhand shops that clutter up southern New England. ...

Sections

Politics & Policy

The Week

‐ President Obama told 60 Minutes that mending the economy “probably takes more than one president.” Hey, we’ve been saying that since January 2009. ‐ Obama, having tired of performing his ...
The Bent Pin

Tingling for Camelot

That barometer of our jejune times, Chris Matthews’s oh-so-sensitive leg, is all aquiver with a brand new thrill. Four years ago it was Obama’s oratory that triggered the hot-cold sensations that ...
Athwart

Crude Ethics

A website aimed at design professionals had a piece this month about keeping your ethical character snow-white when asked to work for dubious clients. Star profile: a young fellow who ...
The Long View

The President’s Schedule

Dec. 13, 2013 (All times approximate.) 6:30 a.m. President and Mrs. Gingrich wake to soothing white-noise generator. Closed Press. 7:00 a.m. President and Mrs. Gingrich attempt “Downward Facing Dog” yoga pose. Pool Spray ...
Politics & Policy

Poetry

JANUARY Why comes the winter with its bitter winds, its drifts of snow and ice that run too deep, as though the Earth the summer’s warmth rescinds and kills the rose we tried past ...
Happy Warrior

The Mutant Present

Flipping channels in my hotel room the other night, I caught ten minutes of Hitchcock’s North by Northwest, a film I like enormously. It’s an “old” movie, from the Fifties, ...
Politics & Policy

Letters

Send Drones, Not Soldiers Jamie M. Fly’s “Retreat — But Whose?” (December 19) turned me from a supporter of the war in Afghanistan to a skeptic. If these are the best ...

Most Popular

Elections

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
U.S.

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More