Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
If it does it does with the permission of the United States, and if I were the United States I'd much rather do it myself. At this point, whatever Israel does will be a sideshow to the main MOP-bustin' spectacle.
It will be difficult for Israel to do anything. Their aircraft will be at the very limit of their fuel legs due to long range, possible terrain-hugging ingress, heavy ordnance and possible evasive manoeuvres if engaging with enemy IADS. I can't imagine fighter-bombers, possibly backed up by refuelling tankers, conclusively knocking out a programme like that (which has doubtlessly looked at Syria and Iraq's experiences) at those distances, which is why the US should do it itself if the situation comes to that.
|
Ok.
However, as you said if the situation bears, under what framework exactly? I mean, it's not like Iraq, when the United States had some sort of legality with UN security resolution demanding disarmament and with the charter stating "UN Member States Take It Upon Themselfs" to enforce UN resolutions.
To my knowledge, I don't know of any UN security resolution against Iran.
So, under the charter, I guess "Self Defense Clause". Even then though, that sets somewhat troublesome precedent and really defines that clause in a entirely new meaning. Which may or may not frankly influence other countries actions.