"It is more dangerous on the surface of our planet than at any moment in recorded history."

I read the below article with regards to the conditions of the planet. Our earth is changing dramatically. 

"Something astounding is going on and the elders in the Arctic Circle are telling us that even the position of the earth relative to the sun and stars has changed. NASA certainly is saying nothing about this but these elders are anything but idiots about their domain in the far north."

You can read more here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033014_Earth_environmental_crisis.html

Israel v. Iran? In the coming weeks?

Earlier tonight I read this article which basically lays out that Israel will attack Iran in the Fall. They can claim "self-defense":

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201171775828434786.html

Iran’s deviant demeanor in the context of world diplomacy suggests that a power struggle is occurring throughout the Arab nations. Iran’s strategy of obtaining regional hegemony through the development of nuclear technology represents a growing danger to surrounding countries, most notably Israel (Temple-Raston, 2010). Iran’s pursuit for weapons-grade uranium and nuclear technology suggests that it seeks nuclear technology for weapons and not for the purposes of energy production. The threat that exists from a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable for many Arab nations. The disclosures of recent Wikileaks documents indicate that Arab leaders urge military action to eliminate the threat posed by a nuclear Iran (Neuman, 2010). The alliance that exists between the United States and Israel serves to provide a shield for the State of Israel in the event of any military action against it. The comments of President Ahmadinejad that “Israel is a germ of corruption that will be removed soon,” highlight the threat of Iran to Israel. (Gharagozli, 2010, p.1). 

The issue at hand is the legality of the use of a tactical nuclear strike to incapacitate Iranian nuclear facilities. The use of pre-emptive self-defense in order to quell a military threat has not been significantly addressed in the form of treaties. This direct issue has not been addressed by the United Nations, yet there is support from the United Nations Charter, as well as customary international law, in the legality of this issue. 

Initially, in this circumstance, the United States should turn to the United Nations Security Council in order to authorize the use of force against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United Nations Security Council has five permanent members: United States, France, Russia, China, and United Kingdom. The fact that China is a large importer of oil from Iran, and that it has ties with Iran through North Korea, it is unlikely that China would authorize the use of force in this circumstance (Friedman, 2010). China and Russia both have a large vested interest in maintaining good relations with Iran, so “as not to undermine potential economic benefits” (Benard, 2010, p.18). Due to the fact that China and Russia play an obstructionist role in international relations, it is unlikely that they would go along with a proposal by the United States to use military force (Benard, 2010)

With regards to the United Nations Charter, Chapter IV, Article 51 indicates that the Charter “shall [not] impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Article 51 has been effective in the past to deal with conventional weaponry, but is ineffective in the era of nuclear weapons (Martinez, 2010) (Benard, 2010). Interpreting the usage of the wording “inherent right of . . . self-defense,” it seems to indicate that self-defense is a unilateral right, meaning a state requires “no approval from the U.N. before making use of its ‘inherent right’” (Benard, 2010, p.4).

Looking to customary international law, the Caroline affair established that imminent necessity and proportionality are necessary for anticipatory self-defense (Webster, 1841). Webster believed that the action undertaken by the British was legal only if force was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” (Webster, 1841, p.4). The outcome of the Caroline affair was to establish that pre-emptive self-defense is legal and necessary, if an armed attack is deemed to be imminent (Levenson, 2010, p.4). The circumstances for this legality of self-defense can be found in the UN Charter in Chapter IV, Article 51. Elsewhere in customary international law, the case of Nicaragua v. United States articulated that “self-defense would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law” (Levenson, 2010, p.6).

The aforementioned examples of the UN Charter, the Caroline affair, as well as Nicaragua v. United States, exemplify the use of pre-emptive self-defense. A instance similar to the one in question, occurred in September 2007, involving the bombing of alleged nuclear sites in Syria by Israel (D’Aspermont, 2010). Israel acted in self-defense in order to eliminate the threat posed by a nuclear-equipped Syria. After the fact, there was no question in the legality of the Israeli bombardment.

In this particular situation, the United States seems to possess the legal right to protect itself and its allies against a nuclear-equipped Iran. In the case of emergency situations, responses may “require extra-legal measures to enable them to preserve their security” (Orakhelashvili, 2010, p.2). Article 51 of the UN Charter exemplifies that nations have the right to protect themselves against an armed attack. The UN Charter protects the right of self-defense, and can be used in the International Court of Justice to compel that pre-emptive force be taken by the United States to thwart an attack. Article 51 of the Charter allows the use of force in pre-emptive self-defense, but only if force is used “subject to the Caroline requirements of necessity and proportionality” (Benard, 2010, p.28). The preemptive use of force systematically creates subjective determinations of necessity and proportionality, since the nation has not yet used military force. These subjective determinations are left up to the nation in the particular circumstance. In the cases of the Caroline affair and Nicaragua v. United States, pre-emptive action was justified against the aggressor.

An attack can be justified through the UN Charter, as well as through customary international law. The cases of the Caroline affair, as well as Nicaragua v. United States, demonstrate that the use of force is subjective to the parties involved. In this circumstance, a tactical nuclear strike would be legal in the notion of self-defense against the nuclear weapons of Iran. A United States nuclear strike would be effective to incapacitate Iran’s nuclear facilities. This strike would not be without incident, as in the bombing of alleged Syrian nuclear sites by Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that Iran “would guard and defend its sovereignty with all means at its disposal.” A nuclear strike by the United States would be seen by Iran as a threat upon its sovereignty, and provoke Iran to retaliate. Regardless, this circumstance can be seen as a situation where pre-emptive self-defense is justified.