It would be pre-emptive action, not self-defence
As Iran does not, at present, possess the capability of hitting Western targets, a strike can not be considered self-defence, but rather 'pre-emptive' - preventing Iran from being able to attack the West in future. This does not necessarily mean it is unwarranted or unjustified.
Immediately related elementsHow this works
-
Responding to Iran's nuclear ambitions »Responding to Iran's nuclear ambitions
How should the international community respond? »How should the international community respond?
Military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities »Military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities
Legal bases for use of force under international law? »Legal bases for use of force under international law?
Self-defence »Self-defence
Would a military strike meet definition of self-defence? »Would a military strike meet definition of self-defence?
Military strike on Iran would not be self-defence »Military strike on Iran would not be self-defence
It would be pre-emptive action, not self-defence
+Kommentare (0)
+Verweise (0)
+About