Illegal strike by Israel would harm U.S. policies

By JOHN B. QUIGLEY
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- One of the more persistent rumors in the Middle East is that Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear power facility. And that the United States would give Israel a wink and a nod.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon has moved the rumors from the back burner to the front. One theory of Israel's motive in Lebanon is that it wants to provoke Iran into action that would provide a pretext for going after Iran's nuclear facility. Whereas President Bush points his finger at Syria for Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, Israel points its finger at Iran.
New stature for Iran
For the United States, Iran is perceived as even more of a threat than previously, because of our own invasion of Iraq and the consequent rise to power of the Sh'ia in Iraq. That development has given Sh'ia Iran new stature in the region.
One awkward aspect for Israel is that it itself has nuclear weaponry at its Dimona facility, and refuses to acknowledge it to the international community. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it is not under the inspection obligations that it accuses Iran of violating. Of any country, Israel has the shakiest grounds for criticizing Iran.
Iran would have more grounds to take out Dimona than would Israel to take out Iran's facility. Not that that would be lawful either. But the rationale would be more plausible.
States cannot bomb each other in response to the construction of nuclear facilities. That is true even if the facilities are clearly military, if weapons are in place, and if there is launching capacity.
The only basis on which a state may use force against another is self-defense, and that means only if there is an attack. If military strikes were allowed on the premise that the target state may attack one day, then all restraint for use of force would vanish. Israel may think that Iran may attack it some day. Equally, Iran may think that Israel may attack it some day.
1981 Israeli bombing
Israel undertook a venture of this kind once before. In 1981 it bombed Iraq's nuclear facility, at a time when Iraq, like Iran today, said it was pursuing only civilian power. The U.N. Security Council said Israel pre-empted international efforts to resolve the matter.
If Israel were to raid Iran, it could count on international passivity. It has scored a diplomatic victory by invading Lebanon and getting no major negative reaction. Arab governments have reacted passively. They would not lift a finger if Israel went after Iran.
An Israeli strike on Iran would have consequences we might not like in the domestic politics of Iran. Support for Iran's fundamentalist president would increase, and the forces of political moderation in Iran would be weakened.
An Israeli strike on Iran would be viewed as the handiwork of the United States. It would be a disaster for us in Iraq. We would anger the Sh'ia of Iraq, whom we are trying to persuade to cooperate with the minority Sunni. The civil war in Iraq might get even hotter.
An Israeli strike on Iran would be the last nail in the coffin of any efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. By speeding more weapons to Israel for use in Lebanon, we have shown ourselves even more clearly the ally of Israel. Backing Israel in striking Iran would make the alliance even more clear.
An Israeli strike on Iran -- coming after our invasion of Iraq and our complicity in Israel's invasion of Lebanon -- would heighten resentment against the United States throughout the Middle East. Americans would be even more at risk.
It is to be hoped, in President Bush's file drawer for "future adventures," an Israeli strike on Iran will remain in the "distant contingency" category.
John B. Quigley is a professor of law at The Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.