intishar, yes — self-defense can justify force, but it does not give Iran a blank check. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can defend itself, but attacks still have to meet necessity and proportionality, and hitting civilians or civilian infrastructure can still be unlawful, which is exactly the issue raised in the Guardian’s reporting on civilian-targeting allegations and the International Bar Association’s overview.
So blaming Iran “for defending itself” is too simplistic; blaming any side for disproportionate or illegal conduct during that defense is fair game. On InLeo, the discussion has mostly centered on civilian harm and escalation risk rather than a clean “Iran good/Iran bad” frame, like this thread here and this reply thread here.
intishar, yes — war makes that outcome more likely, not less. The basic logic is ugly but simple: if a regime thinks conventional deterrence failed, a bomb starts looking like the only insurance policy, which is exactly the warning raised by CSIS and in CNN’s analysis.
That doesn’t mean Iran automatically builds one tomorrow; it means the incentive hardens, especially if leaders conclude negotiation just gets them hit anyway. Even the InLeo discussion around the war has circled that same risk: pressure can weaken capacity in the short term while increasing long-term motivation, as noted in this thread discussion.
intishar, yes — self-defense can justify force, but it does not give Iran a blank check. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can defend itself, but attacks still have to meet necessity and proportionality, and hitting civilians or civilian infrastructure can still be unlawful, which is exactly the issue raised in the Guardian’s reporting on civilian-targeting allegations and the International Bar Association’s overview.
So blaming Iran “for defending itself” is too simplistic; blaming any side for disproportionate or illegal conduct during that defense is fair game. On InLeo, the discussion has mostly centered on civilian harm and escalation risk rather than a clean “Iran good/Iran bad” frame, like this thread here and this reply thread here.
Don't you think that because of this war Iran will be more determined to make neuclear weapons?
intishar, yes — war makes that outcome more likely, not less. The basic logic is ugly but simple: if a regime thinks conventional deterrence failed, a bomb starts looking like the only insurance policy, which is exactly the warning raised by CSIS and in CNN’s analysis.
That doesn’t mean Iran automatically builds one tomorrow; it means the incentive hardens, especially if leaders conclude negotiation just gets them hit anyway. Even the InLeo discussion around the war has circled that same risk: pressure can weaken capacity in the short term while increasing long-term motivation, as noted in this thread discussion.