There is a new article on the Newsweek site about the ‘covert war’ going on inside Iran to destabilise its nuclear programme, noting the suspicious attacks on its nuclear scientists recently. It brought me back to the discussion about murder and reason of state: are Iran’s scientists ‘fair game’ for targeted killing? Xavier says no: ‘Scientists are not military targets.’ Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Our goal is to stop the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon and we need to convince Tehran that the longer they try, the more costly it will be. Bumping off their nuclear scientists fits in perfectly with this ‘containment’ strategy, which, to me, means the restrained application of sustained pressure. This covers everything from sanctions and negotiation to a military build-up, encouraging internal protests and limited political violence. What do readers think?
Iran, murder and reason of state
Posted on December 15, 2010
Advertisement
Xavier Rauscher
December 15, 2010
I’ll stand with what I said. Scientists are not legitimate (let alone legal) targets. They’re human beings, civilians, doing their jobs, and have no particular responsibility other than that.
The taking of a human life should not be taken lightly.
Aaron Ellis
December 15, 2010
This risks Godwin’s Law, but: if Werner Heisenberg had been on the right lines with Germany’s atomic bomb programme, would it have been wrong for the Allies to try to kill him and his scientists?
Jason Fritz
December 15, 2010
That’s a whole different issue – we were at war with Germany when they were attempting to develop a bomb.
Jason Fritz
December 15, 2010
I’m with Xavier on this one. I’m not a fan of assassinations in general, but especially assassinations of citizens of a country with whom the assassin is not at war with. I wouldn’t be particularly happy if Iran ever does develop a nuclear weapon, but it is not a casus belli. Having a weapon and having the will to use it are two different things, Israel’s (somewhat legitimate) paranoia notwithstanding. In spite of the rhetoric, my take on Iran’s weapons development is as a deterrent, not an offensive weapon, in order to prevent future Iran-Iraq style wars. As such, murdering their scientists seems extreme, illegal, and immoral. And it certainly is not “containment” – it’s offensive.
Aaron Ellis
December 15, 2010
It’s not that I’m a ‘fan’ of assassinations, it’s more that I think they’re a legitimate tool for states to use sometimes. Like Stahl and Owens, I think they have to be part of a wider strategy and help achieve that strategy’s goals.
With regard to Iran, I believe they are part of a strategy (vaguely containment) and do help achieve our overall goal: forcing Iran to stop its nuclear programme by making the cost of continuing it so high.
And sure, containment is ‘defensive’; but that’s at the strategic level. That doesn’t preclude ‘offensive’ tactics, and didn’t in the Cold War.
Ed
December 31, 2010
Iran has been waging an undeclared low-level war by means of terrorism and irregular methods against us and other countries it considers enemies. This includes helping Iraqi irregulars with armour-piercing charges against our troops, support for Hezollah and Hamas and bombings in other countries such as the Jewish centre bombing in Argentina.
Given this, we cannot afford to be squeamish about the use of assassination as a weapon. We are facing enemies who do not hesitate to use irregular warfare and need to respond in kind, which can be highly effective. For example, the South West Africa Police Counter-Insurgency (SWAPOL-COIN) forces would use booby trapping to great effect against communist terrorists and guerrillas. On discovering a weapons cache, instead of removing it, it would be boobytrapped to kill the terrorists when they returned, such as by tampering with handgrenades to make them explode as soon as the pin was removed.