War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[JMA]

There's a difference between being timid and being cautious.

And in this case of Iran and its nuclear programme what exactly is the difference?

[jmm99]

Following the logic of this thread, we would see (1) an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities; and (2) some sort of response by Iran (usually focused on the Gulf and/or Iraq).

From those basics, we hear of action by NATO (EU) and the US. As to NATO (EU), it seems hard to see how Iranian action would trigger a collective response by NATO (or the EU), despite various interlinked alliances:

Our NATO collective defence was regionally limited, basically to Europe and North America. Attacks on the Falklands, for example, wouldn't have activated NATO obligations. NATO is only a collective defence north of the tropic of cancer (see article VI).

The WEU treaty has stronger wording about what to do in case of an attack, but it's limited to Europe (see article V).

Well, what was the extension of our collective defence commitments .... See the Treaty of Lisbon:

Article 42:

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. ...

Now I suppose one might argue that an attack on a Dutch ship is an attack on the Lowlands; and thus technically (and very tenuously) meeting the "on the territory" requirement; but does anyone think that an attack on one tanker (or ten) would generate the political will for NATO to engage in a collective armed conflict, even if it were legal. What is Iran's immediate existential hostile threat to NATO (EU) ?

Now, an alternative might come about if the Security Council mandated collective action pursuant to the Peace Enforcement provisions of Chapter 7. Does anyone believe that that will happen ? So, the issue will pass to individual nations to take their stand or not, depending on their self-interests.

Take the US. What is Iran's immediate existential hostile threat to the US ?

Note that I did not ask what Iran is threatening. US national command policy should not be shaped by what another nation theatens - but, it must take into account what another nation can deliver. What Iran can deliver is somewhat speculative and the various order effects cannot be determined with certainty.

If we have a situation where a nation (or group) is an immediate existential hostile threat to the US, we kill it by whatever means are required; and we should offer no apologies regardless of what the rest of the World thinks.

The posited situation (IMO) - (1) an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities; and (2) some sort of response by Iran - does not meet the "immediate existential hostile threat" standard re: the US.

Thus, the response of the US must legally and logically be proportional to the threat to the US, which seems to me to cover a rather speculative range. The response must also legally and logically be that necessary to meet the threat with a direct and tangible advantage to the US (e.g., a diplomatic response may provide more advantage than a military response, or vice versa).

Each nation must analize its response in terms of its own interests and the extent of the threat to it.

Regards

Mike