Time to Attack Iran

John Yoo, National Review January 3, 2012

Get FREE NRO Newsletters

December 31 Issue

Subscribe to NR

Renew

December 31 Issue | Subscribe | Renew

January 3, 2012 4:00 A.M.

By John Yoo

Outside the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran

Free NRO Newsletters

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.” Advertisement 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 naively 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. 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. 1 2 Next > !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); Print You Might Also Like...

COMMENTS 22

EXPAND

$.getJSON('http://nr-media-01.nationalreview.com/outloudopinion/articles/286953/unavoidable-challenge-john-yoo?jsoncallback=?', function(data){ if (data.audio) { $("#outloudopinion").html('

Listen to the Audio Version

').show(); AudioPlayer.embed("outloudaudio", { soundFile: data.audio, titles: "An Unavoidable Challenge" }); } }); SORT Newest FirstOldest First Arthur Sido : 01/03/12 15:08

Gee, why is Ron Paul gaining such traction? Foolishness like this.

I mean, those troops we just brought back from Iraq are just sitting around now for weeks, doing nothing! We ain't paying them to sit around, we pay them to shoot people on our behalf!

After Iran, then what? You know it will be something because heaven forbid we go a couple of years without picking a new fight with someone.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Bart : 01/03/12 13:30

Prof. Yoo is right! Fortunately, Iran doesn't border any nations that can: (1) help it reconstitute its nuclear program as quickly as we degrade it (assuming we can); or (2) simply ship nuclear weapons to it - and that don't see themselves as threatened by Iran having a nuclear capability.

Oh wait. It does.

So we use air power to bomb nuclear-related installations, and Iran says, "Gee, we're sorry; we won't do it anymore!" and Iran's neighbor (what country is that again?) says, "Well, heck, we're staying out of it - Iran, you're on your own. We're not going to send you any information, personnel or material."

There's a reason why Mr. Obama's policy re Iran is so similar to that of both President Bush's, Clinton's, Reagan's and Carter's. And why President (name your favorite Republican here) would be the same as well: until Russia believes that a nuclear Iran is antithetical to its interests, there is very little we can substantively do other than make life dificult for the regime: unless we want to invade, occupy and depose the regime itself.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse joshcharlesen : 01/03/12 13:00

John Yoo wants a war. The same criminals and their lap-dogs are at it again, plain and simple. When are we going to use our heads and figure out what is happening? This war is being sold as an inevitability and meanwhile the de facto policymakers (not neccessarily the elected ones) are doing everything they can to escalate tensions because they want war to be "unavoidable". I'm moving to the Faroe Islands to get away from the idiots.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Charles Norris : 01/03/12 14:59

Please do that and send us a postcard.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Hellene : 01/03/12 12:27

The best thing for everybody would be for Iran to have an "accident."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Francis W. Porretto : 01/03/12 12:22

Many of the objections to American uses of force internationally, which would undoubtedly be heard should the desirability of attacking Iran should be debated in Congress, are founded on the notion of "sovereignty." Presidential candidate Ron Paul has said repeatedly that a sovereign nation has every right to whatever weapons it wants to amass, with obvious application to Iran. But the premise -- the notion that sovereignty is some sort of absolute, inherent characteristic -- is false.

A nation's sovereignty consists in the willingness of other nations to tolerate it, and nothing else. It's a de facto rather than a de jure condition. It's always been that way. After a war, the losing government has no recourse; complaining that its sovereignty as been violated is a risible cry.

If we must go to war to prevent Iran from becoming the first nuclear terrorist state, then so be it. The sycophants of the United Nations can carp about it before, during, and afterward. As Khrushchev said after the Soviets destroyed the 1956 Hungarian uprising, if they want to debate it, they can have it as a souvenir.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse DavidEMThompson : 01/03/12 12:08

"If casualties result because [military/nuclear] facilities are located beneath cities, the fault rests with the Iranians for deliberately using civilians to shield its military "” a move long forbidden by the laws of war." An excellent point, and I agree. But we have not been able to sell this view to the leftists in this country or abroad. In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Israelis target military facilities and even avoid those that have Palestinian human shields. The Palestinians intentionally target and kill Israeli civilians. The Israelis are charged with war crimes in courts IN WESTERN EUROPE for killing civilians. The Palestinians are not criticized. That same dichotomy held in the VietNam War. If we strike Iran, we must be prepared for a firestorm of criticism, domestic and international. No reference to the laws of war will serve as a defense. Mr. Obama is probably taking covert action against Iran already. I don't expect him to ever do more.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Oneoff : 01/03/12 11:25

With Iraq ended and Afghanistan winding down the Military-Industrial Complex is DESPERATE for another new war, to rake in those obscene profits.

Captha:Hug Me

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Oh My Head Hurts : 01/03/12 10:54

As the old saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Is there any problem the Republicans (or Democrats) can solve, that does NOT involve attacking nation after nation, on one pretext or another?

The reason I believe, is that the influx of immigrants (legal or otherwise) in recent decades means that government jobs are the only reasonably secure, well-paying employment for those of us who are not geniuses or who do not wish to work 60-hour weeks all the time. The government jobs are the only ones that new immigrants cannot readily obtain. And, at least for males, what is a good entry point to those government jobs? Why, it is the military, itself a government job. That, and there are numerous parts of the country where the non-government employer base is small or low-paying, making the nearby military base the foundation of the local economy.

Reagan: The grand creator of government jobs.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Perplexed : 01/03/12 10:46

The most effective time to attack was long ago and has passed. We identified the danger but did not have the will. Now we are faced with a reality that forces us into action but with much worse consequences. Unfortunately, the west never learns and will suffer much from lacking the will to survive. Our enemies have that will and will seek to destroy us as they have said many times before.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse cpc : 01/03/12 10:33

Yoo with all the pedigree in juris prudence, working with big wigs on a national level etc, is nothing more than a fool. This whole notion of Iran "nuclear power" is an old adage that still gets traction from phobes like him. Iranian ruling powers are on it's last legs and what started as Arab Spring is going to reach Persian imagination for sure. The Iranian governing powers can't even supply gas for their domestic constitutency for less than $5 a gallon let alone stem the inflation that is currently rising out of control. In the midst of the Iranian mullah dominated paranoid govt's convulsions, pundits like Yoo want to legitamize their bull horns by posturing for military interventions for which currently U.S. neither have the full resources nor has political will. War weary citizenry is the reason for inaction, not left leaning leaders. NRO should stop publishing crap like Yoo's or administer simple tests on current geo political trends to these pundits before accepting their drivel.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse h abdullah shabazz : 01/03/12 10:11

What's the endgame,neocons?

Iran is a united country of 78 million people.. 3 times Afghanistan, that will take another generation says Patreus. 3 times Iraq that the necons are saying we lost.. How many divisons and how many years do you need to dominate Iran?

Fellas speak softly carry a big stick,. But Iran? Forgetaboutit.

And what should we care about Iran? Brazil doesnt. Like us theyre a big country, near us, and 6000 miles from Iran, bordered by weak neigbors and the ocean, with plenty of oil. Wake me up when Brazil gets nervous about Iran.

Brazil has never lost a war, never been invaded, never worreid about atomic atttack, doesnt need bases, or body bags. They mind theyre own business, and so they only need to spend 4% of what we do on the military, So theyre not broke like us.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse putigr12 : 01/03/12 15:12

Everyone cannot rely on someone else to keep order, or there is no one keeping order.

As for the endgame, you ask a legitimate question. I suspect the pie-in-the-sky endgame dreamed by most neocons is that the constant, costly game of whack-an-evil-mole will lead to less and less moles over the long haul (and eventually to zero? lol). Supposedly the populace of these nations will inevitably reject their tyrannical rulers for a more peace-loving and free existence.

However, I see little evidence that this is the case.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Neil Smith : 01/03/12 09:20

Our party led this nation into two wars of which one was necessary. We have shown that we are quite capable of screwing things up as bad as the Democrats. We need to listen to voices such as Ron Paul who advocate less not more intervention. If you don't trust Ron Paul, maybe men like Georege Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson will do because they all advocated staying away from foreign conflicts. And not just because we were an infant nation.

Our military is stretched to the limit. Talk to those inside the military and soldiers are leaving at a rapid pace. We must build our military back before engaging in another war. Surely Libya is a good example of how we should proceed with Iran.

This author has presented a very biased view and most of the Republican base does not support yet another military confrontation, especially a land based war.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse JayWye : 01/03/12 10:37

Only ONE war was necessary? Which? AF or Iraq? Evidently,you did not read Jim Lacey's article here External Link about Saddam and WMDs,or the other reasons he (and Bush) listed for the Iraq invasion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse John Dallas : 01/03/12 09:19

"The surgical nature of such strikes would make them proportional to the military objective, which would be not the overthrow of the Iranian regime but the destruction of its nuclear capability."

Get a clue Yoo. The real objective needs to be taking out the regime, by degrading its nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure. Otherwise, we are just delaying the inevitable.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse JasonC : 01/03/12 10:44

Exactly. The problem is not a France or an England having nuclear weapons, the problem is the world's leader sponsor of international terrorism and political extremism throughout the Islamic world getting them. There is no reason to tolerate this regime. I get that the prof thinks international law makes military action against a military threat more palatable than judging regimes, but so much the worse for international law. Because in the real world, there is no peace as long as these violent thugs rule Iran.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse History Buff : 01/03/12 08:12

Mr. Yoo....what would the average gallon of gas in the US be after a major military strike (and the resulting counter-response by the Iranians) be?

Or is that one of the "unknown unknowns" that Donald Rumsfeld used to tell us about?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Not so much : 01/03/12 11:00

Sarcastic Answer: You're completely right! We should definitely let a country that has very clearly stated its intent to destroy Israel and the US obtain nuclear weapons. It's completely not worth paying more money at the pump!

Obvious Answer: A quick internet search shows that Iran isn't even in the top 15 countries that the US imports oil from. The only major importer is Saudi Arabia and their entire economy would collapse if they just stopped exporting oil to America. So, I'm going to have to say that we really wouldn't experience to bad of a gas pump price jump.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse JayWye : 01/03/12 10:22

the price of gas will not matter if Iran makes an EMP attack on the US. For which they have been practicing. Testing SCUD launches from containerships is not for attacking Israel(the LESSER Satan),and then there's their missile base in Venezuela.Or if they decide they are safe under their nuclear umbrella and close off Hormuz,so they can take Iraq and it's oil fields.(and solving their Kurd problem)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse SteveM : 01/03/12 14:36

EMP! Venezuela! Scuds from containerships!

And don't forget about Iran secretly fluoridating our water!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse Doctor Robert : 01/03/12 07:25

Iran's aspirations could easily be blocked or contained if the US had military crediblity. However, just as was the case after VietNam, the Iranians and other assorted bad guys know that the American left has veto power over our response and that nothing useful can presently be accomplished by the US threatening force of arms. This is most unfortunate, because Iran is a more real, meaningful and formidable opponent than Iraq ever was made out to be, yet simultaneously one more susceptible to the application of fine military tactics.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse 1

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.

Your Name * Your E-mail * The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. Your Comment *

* Designates a required field. © National Review Online 2012 All Rights Reserved. Subscriptions NR / Print NR / Digital Renewals/Changes NR Apps iPhone/iPad Android NRO Apps iPhone Support Us Donate Media Kit Contact

NRO Articles | Article RSS | Author Directory

// Subscribe to National Review Print Digital iOS Android // NRO Live Blog Feed

Iowa Bestows Gifts Other Than Nominations: As we eagerly await . . .

The Corner

A Feeble Defense of Disruption: In today’s Inside Higher Ed, . . .

Phi Beta Cons

Urban Meyer Bans Twitter : Urban Meyer has banned the . . .

Right Field

Game On: Newt Calls Mitt a Liar: No more Mr. . . .

The Feed

The Incomplete Neoliberal Revolution: Ramesh Ponnuru’s latest column argues that . . .

The Agenda

$737 Million of Your Money Bet on Molten Salt to . . .

Planet Gore

Connect with NRO

className = 'blog_text'; max_width = 400; if (document.getElementsByClassName) { classes = document.getElementsByClassName(className); } else { classes = Array(); divs = document.getElementsByTagName('div'); for(i = 0; i < divs.length; i++) { if (divs[i].className == className) { classes.push(divs[i]); } } } if (classes.length) { for (k = 0; k < classes.length; k++) { div = classes[k]; var imgs = div.getElementsByTagName("img"); for (var i in imgs) { img = imgs[i]; if (img.width < max_width || !img.src) { continue; } ratio = (img.height/img.width); img.width = max_width; img.height = Math.round((max_width * ratio)); } var objects = div.getElementsByTagName("object"); for (var i in objects) { object = objects[i]; if (object.width < max_width) { continue; } ratio = (object.height/object.width); object.width = max_width; object.height = Math.round((max_width * ratio)); } var embeds = div.getElementsByTagName("embed"); for (var i in embeds) { embed = embeds[i]; if (embed.width < max_width || !embed.src) { continue; } ratio = (embed.height/embed.width); embed.width = max_width; embed.height = Math.round((max_width * ratio)); } } } flowplayer("div.player", { src: "http://global.nationalreview.com/swf/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.2.swf", wmode: "transparent" }, { key: '#$7d41c22f17c720e72d8', canvas: { backgroundColor: '#000000', backgroundGradient: 'none' }, clip: { onStart: function() { pageTracker._trackPageview(this.getClip().url); pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Play", this.getClip().url); }, onResume: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Resume", this.getClip().url, parseInt(this.getTime())); }, onPause: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Pause", this.getClip().url, parseInt(this.getTime())); }, onStop: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Stop", this.getClip().url, parseInt(this.getTime())); }, onFinish: function() { pageTracker._trackEvent("Blog Videos", "Finish", this.getClip().url); }, scaling: 'fit' }, plugins: { audio: { url: 'flowplayer.audio-3.2.0.swf' }, controls: { url: "flowplayer.controls-air-3.2.1.swf", timeColor: "#ffffff", borderRadius: "0px", bufferGradient: "none", slowForward: true, backgroundColor: "rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6)", volumeSliderGradient: "none", slowBackward: false, progressGradient: "medium", time: true, height: 22, volumeColor: "rgba(120, 120, 120, 1)", tooltips: { marginBottom: 5, volume: true, scrubber: true, buttons: false }, opacity: 1, fastBackward: false, volumeSliderColor: "rgba(217, 210, 217, 1)", border: "0px", bufferColor: "rgba(150, 150, 150, 1)", buttonColor: "rgba(87, 87, 87, 50)", mute: true, autoHide: { enabled: true, hideDelay: 1500, hideStyle: "fade", mouseOutDelay: 1500, hideDuration: 500, fullscreenOnly: false }, backgroundGradient: [0.5,0.2,0], width: "100pct", display: "block", buttonOverColor: "rgba(148, 148, 148, 0)", fullscreen: true, timeBgColor: "rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)", scrubberBarHeightRatio: 0.2, bottom: 0, stop: false, zIndex: 1, sliderColor: "#000000", scrubberHeightRatio: 0.4, tooltipTextColor: "rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.55)", sliderGradient: "none", timeBgHeightRatio: 0.7, volumeSliderHeightRatio: 0.4, name: "controls", volumeBarHeightRatio: 0.2, left: "50pct", tooltipColor: "rgba(156, 156, 156, 0.25)", playlist: false, durationColor: "rgba(166, 166, 166, 1)", play: true, fastForward: true, progressColor: "#ffffff", timeBorder: "1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3)", scrubber: true, volume: true, builtIn: false } } }); _qoptions={ qacct:"p-cdKqrewDOys1A" };

COMMENTS 22

EXPAND

Gee, why is Ron Paul gaining such traction? Foolishness like this.

I mean, those troops we just brought back from Iraq are just sitting around now for weeks, doing nothing! We ain't paying them to sit around, we pay them to shoot people on our behalf!

After Iran, then what? You know it will be something because heaven forbid we go a couple of years without picking a new fight with someone.

Oh wait. It does.

Read Full Article »

Comment

Show comments

Time to Attack Iran

Related Articles