"War With Iran?" Topic

"When U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Thursday presented what she claimed was irrefutable evidence that Iran had supplied a missile launched at the Saudi Arabian capital by Houthi rebels in Yemen last month, it was hard not to recall the last time an American diplomat stood before the U.N. with evidence that a rogue Middle Eastern state was engaged in proliferation of dangerous weapons.

As it turned out, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's 2003 speech explaining the Bush administration's rationale for going to war with Iraq was based on lies and fabrications, and of course, Iran says Haley's evidence is fabricated as well. Iran's proxy relationship with the Houthis is well-known, but the U.N. itself is not as sure as the U.S. seems to be that the two short-range ballistic missiles fired by the Houthis were Iranian-made, while some experts suspect Saudi Arabia of overstating Iran's meddling in Yemen, the better to justify its own…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Even if the missile fired at Saudi Arabia was provided by Iran, is that causus belli for war? After all, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi and the kingdom still supports anti-western madrassas.

Even if the missile fired at Saudi Arabia was provided by Iran, is that causus belli for war?

Of course it is.

Or maybe we should just let Saudi Arabia and Iran work it out between themselves and stay out of the Sunni Versus Shia pissing contest. It's not worth losing a single American life over.

I agree 28mm, neither nation is worth losing any of our troops over.

By the same measure do the US weapons supplied to Syrian rebels and used against Syrian and Russian forces mean those countries have a similar causes belli wrt the USA?

Don't worry. The U.N. will fix it. :)

Dan
TMP link

Time to sit this one out. But it is good for business, so there's that.

With the statement about Powell, I have no need to read more.

Good point David.