Professional Soldiers ® - Veiled Impunity: Iran's Use of Non-State Armed Groups

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- Middle East (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=109)

- - Veiled Impunity: Iran's Use of Non-State Armed Groups (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15852)

Veiled Impunity: Iran's Use of Non-State Armed Groups

Veiled Impunity: Iran's Use of Non-State Armed Groups
May 20, 2007
Keith A. Petty

The author is a JAG officer and prosecutor with the Office of Military Commissions at Gitmo.

Abstract:

Quote:

Iran's use of non-state armed groups is a key component of its foreign policy, and is more sophisticated than the blunt use of force against other States. As such, this strategy is deceptively threatening to the territorial integrity and political independence of the target States of groups such as Hezbollah, Mahdi's Army, and Hamas. Under traditional interpretations of the jus ad bellum, indirect aggression can be attributed to sponsor States if it is comparable to the direct use of force by a State, or if the State is substantially involved in the armed group's attack. That Iranian support is veiled, and rarely meets the control requirement necessary over its armed groups, leaves a significant gap in efforts to deter this unlawful behavior. This article examines the nature of Iran's support to select armed groups, whether it constitutes unlawful aggression, and provides a comprehensive legal framework for deterring this aspect of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy.

The article is a PDF, downloadable here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1013415

Iran's support for these groups is well-established, but operational control doesn't necessarily follow. Hezbollah is a good example, for it must also continue to appeal to its local political base. In some cases, this may place it in alignment with Iran, but in others it may not. If we strike Iran, will Hezbollah attack Israel? Probably, but it could very likely be an opoortunistic, revenge-driven act, rather than an orchestrated piece of Tehran's master plan. My only point is that it is unclear exactly what Iran is guaranteed in return for its investments, other than a multiplication of it's enemies' enemies.