What exactly did Israel’s and the United States’ bombings of Iran last month accomplish? As the dust begins to settle,
it is clear that neither of the stated intentions of the attacks’ architects—to unravel the Iranian regime and to decapitate the country’s nuclear capabilities—have been realized.
On the contrary, argues Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on Iranian foreign policy,
the brazen attacks have only united Iranians around the flag and made the task of Iranian pro-democracy activists far more difficult. “Israel and the United States didn’t obliterate Iran’s nuclear program,”
he says, “but they may have obliterated the confidence in diplomacy needed to pursue a diplomatic outcome.”
How did we get to this point? Last week Rajan Menon, senior research fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute for War and Peace Studies,
spoke with Parsi by phone to discuss the history of U.S. and Israeli relations with Iran, the current geopolitical situation, and more.
Rajan Menon: The attacks’ proponents framed them as a matter of self-defense: Israel, up against the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran,
had no choice but to preemptively strike the country that has called for its destruction. But can Israel’s actions be justified in any way by international law?
Trita Parsi: When it comes to where international law falls on this, there is no debate. This is not a scenario in which an imminent attack in any way, shape,
or form could be pointed to. Israel has not provided any evidence for that. Even its statements that by 2026, the Iranians would have X, Y, and Z nuclear capability—this is not anything that could be categorized as imminent.
No comments:
Post a Comment