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
+Commentaires (0)
+Citations (0)
+About