1/ So . . . it is strange that we were discussing this just as it was unfolding! Here is a quick initial analysis:
a) First, as a general disclaimer, we don't yet know all the facts;
b) But it is clear that Soleimani has been responsible for orchestrating acts against US forces;
a) First, as a general disclaimer, we don't yet know all the facts;
b) But it is clear that Soleimani has been responsible for orchestrating acts against US forces;
2/ c) The Pentagon statement noted that the goal was "deterring future Iranian attack plans." This would indicated that there *may* have been evidence of an imminent attack by elements of the Iranian Quds force.
Thus, there are strong arguments the US strike was legal . . .
Thus, there are strong arguments the US strike was legal . . .
a) Under Art 51 of the UN Charter, states have an inherent right of self-defense if an "armed attack has occurred."
b) It could be argued that Quds force actions have constituted an ongoing armed attack against the US, thus an armed attack has occurred OR . . .
b) It could be argued that Quds force actions have constituted an ongoing armed attack against the US, thus an armed attack has occurred OR . . .
c) it could be argued that even if an armed attack has not occurred, such attack was imminent, and
d) customary international law recognizes a right of
anticipatory self-defense, if an attack is i) imminent and ii) the response is proportionate to the threat . . .
d) customary international law recognizes a right of
anticipatory self-defense, if an attack is i) imminent and ii) the response is proportionate to the threat . . .
e) and it would seem that Soleimani is a legitimate target because as a military leader, he was a combatant and thus a lawful target under the Law of Armed Conflict.
BUT . . . . .
BUT . . . . .
6/ While I believe an argument could be made that the US strike was lawful under international law, I am not sure this was a wise policy move. Iran will retaliate. How will the US response to that? Is the US escalating without a strategy in mind? . . .
7/ Is the US effectively beginning another armed conflict in the region? How will this escalated? As @jimsciutto is observing on @CNN, will this lead to actions against US diplomatic and economic targets? Will it lead to cyber actions?
@jimsciutto @CNN 8/ I truly worry that the US has opened a pandora's box without a clear sense of our next moves. END
