The short of it is clear. Any nation that is attacked can pursue the attackers until they enter the territory or airspace of a neutral nation. However, any nation that would supply bases used for violating another nation’s sovereignty using “platforms” that are typically armed is not neutral.
Thus, International Law is clear on this:
According to “The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law,” Second Edition, by Nicholas M. Poulantzas, any nation that has its sovereignty violated by one of three classes of forces, naval, air or ground, is free to pursue those forces and destroy them up to the time they enter proven neutral safe havens. Then other, diplomatic, methods apply.
The case that can be made to any reasonable observer is that violation of Iranian airspace did happen, that there was “hot pursuit” by fighter aircraft and that International Law would allow, not just destruction of the drone but may well allow an attack on the base where the drone is launched.
Using these same laws as Israel does in Lebanon and has on several occasions, the right has been asserted that military force can pursue any attacking force into a neutral country, seek out bases of operation and, as the law has applied to Israel on many occasions, attack and attempt to destroy these bases.
This had actually been taken as far as to justify the bombing and shelling that destroyed the city of Beirut in 1982 and 2006, bombings that included civilian areas.
A key issue is that there is no clear classification for drones. As the Raptor carries a typical weapons payload of 2,500 pounds of ordnance, it is reasonable to assume that an incursion by such a “platform” is intended as an act of war.
After all, the United States has satellites that can read a newspaper from space, see underground, identify materials and even scan individual faces and access dozens of databases, law enforcement / terrorism, passport, credit, healthcare and even social networking.
The issue is not one of a need to gather intelligence, to spy, but violation of sovereignty and more, placing known weapons platforms in violation of airspace, a credible threat.
With the history of the use of drones by the US, thousands of civilians killed by Raptor and Predator drones, Hellfire missiles fired onto funerals and weddings, innocent vehicles and, friendly fire incidents, the reporting of which are always censored, a drone entering airspace is to be accepted as a “bombing attack.”
In fact, the US has established the “right of hot pursuit” and repeatedly misconstrued the use of drones to target suspected militants for assassination using “area munitions” with an extremely high probability of “collateral damage.”
The right claimed by the US is based on the assumption that any person on earth that owns a weapon or is thought to have owned one or who may or may not have met with someone who has been critical of US policy is a “terrorist suspect” and, thus, subject to execution even if that means the destruction of an entire village in the process.
This right, by the US, according to legal opinions submitted by the same two US Attorney Generals aided by “think tank” experts with dual Israeli/American citizenry, also authorized the indeterminate arrest and detention without probable cause of any person on earth, even American citizens, authorized their torture for years and authorized any information given while under torture to be admissible though America’s highest law, the constitution specifically prohibits any acts of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
(Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution – 1787)
On November 1, 2012, an Iranian Su 25 ground attack aircraft, fired on an American drone. It was not until seven days later, after the American election that the news was announced.
In doing so, as usual, the Pentagon chose to lie to the press and use the incident as “proof” of Iran’s warlike intentions.
But then the world knows Iran is warlike; after all, the film “Argo,” a highly fictionalized Islamophobic Hollywood offering seemed to have the same writers used by the Pentagon.
The cover story told by the Pentagon is absurd. Its claim is that a Raptor drone with a top cruising speed of 220 miles per hour was attacked unsuccessfully over international waters, 16 miles offshore, in contravention of International Law. This would put the drone 4 miles outside Iranian airspace.
We will examine the issues of this and the ramifications.
The plane in pursuit, the Su 25, is a heavily armored ground attack plane with an operational top speed of around 600 miles per hour. The Su 25 is a “tank killer” not unlike the American A 10 “Warthog.”
In fact, the planes have oddly similar names; the Su is called the “Frogfoot.”
The use of drones has nothing to do with inspection of nuclear energy facilities, an issue the US and Iran have preliminary agreements in place to settle diplomatically.
Drones violate sovereignty in efforts to test air defenses, look for “soft points.” They are used to gain intelligence only required if war is planned. However, the only regime that has openly stated it plans an attack on Iran is Israel and even then, the statements come from one man, Netanyahu, statements that have been repudiated by both military and intelligence officials in his own government.
Is it the Obama administration or rogue forces in the US military, in the region, that are pushing for war with Iran? Are these commanders in service of Israel? Though some have been removed, how many are still “out there?”
ROGUE MILITARY THEORY
A few weeks ago, one of the top US commanders in the region was found “unfit” and physically “removed” from an aircraft carrier that was actively approaching Iranian waters.
Admiral Gaouette is one of several high ranking US military officers in the region to be summarily dismissed. General Petraeus, CIA Director, resigned this week though the inane ramblings of the conspiratorial “pop culture press” has yet to discover ties to the increasingly heated situation in the Persian Gulf.
Are the other conspiracies being “sold” to the public to hide one far more serious? In America, a top official can be destroyed for loyalty and service as much as for acts of irresponsibility.
Petraeus could well be the victim of his own 2010 report, 82 pages, citing Israel’s destabilizing policies in the region as an impediment to US goals.
Within hours after Petraeus resigns, Israel begins shelling Syria. Is this a coincidence?
AMERICA AT WAR, ANOTHER “SECRET WAR,” ILLEGAL AS USUAL
The pre-election exercise in the Persian Gulf by three US carrier battle groups was clearly a political ploy to defuse Willard Romney’s election potential in Florida, where the Jewish vote can decide an election.
America risks war over such things.
Romney had already taken a beating there among Cuban voters when FBI officials leaked his secret visits to Cuba for “romantic trysts” along with multiple meetings with Castro.
With the election over and Netanyahu’s surrogate, Romney, a loser in a “landslide” election, with the removal of so many military and intelligence officials, and rumors indicate many more are “in the works,” is there a problem within the “chain of command” in the United States?
POLITICAL TIMING, A TIME FOR SETTLEMENT
There must be a dividing line drawn, those things done for political and electoral expediency by the Obama administration and post-election acts which should reflect real American policy.
Nothing done during an election cycle in the United States is “real.” As pointed out by columnist Kevin Barrett and others, Netanyahu’s enmity toward the reelected US president was made clear during the election. Never has a foreign leader, especially one from such a small entity, ever been so directly and illegally involved in American politics.
During the entire election, venom spewed from Tel Aviv, but so did up to one billion dollars in illegal campaign contributions to Mitt Romney’s campaign.
INSTABILITY AT HOME
A reasonable analysis of what is being seen in the US is clear. America faces an insurrection driven by extremist groups within the financial community who are actively working with religious cults that have penetrated the officer corps through America’s discredited service academies.
Many American military, some retired but some actively serving, have displayed clear signs of treasonous disloyalty and the willingness to, not only overthrow the civilian government but to stage terror attacks inside the United States in concert with foreign intelligence agencies.
This is not conjecture. One such potential attack may well have happened yesterday, perhaps a “test run.” The report of this wild conspiracy theory came to me from a retired Air Force pilot who flew nuclear-armed F-111’s for a living.
He indicated that the mysterious explosions that took place in Indiana yesterday do not pass the “sniff test.” The retired Air Force colonel responds below, one with top security clearances and a career of special operations behind him.
This is his assessment:
There are two people dead and they will not release their names so far.