Obama has failed to "build the legal case for attacking Iran", according to Yoo, instead depending on the United Nations. This is a staggering statement, very much in line with the type of neo-con rhetoric seen just prior to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is pointless, he argues, to expect assistance from the United Nations, since:
The U.N. Charter guarantees the territorial integrity and political independence of each member nation, and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense, which many scholars and international officials interpret to mean that force is prohibited except when an invader has attacked across a border or is about to do so. It does provide an exception for war to prevent threats to international peace and security, but only if approved by the Security Council (where the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China all have a veto) ... But the U.N. has no armed forces of its own, has a crippled decision-making system, and lacks political legitimacy. It is contrary to both American national interests and global welfare because it subjects any intervention, no matter how justified or beneficial, to the approval of authoritarian nations. Thankfully, the U.S. has not often waited for the Security Council's permission to protect its interests ...
... A president need not wait until an attack is imminent before taking action. Iranian nuclear capabilities would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power, and that fact justifies action in itself.
He calls for an attack which is:
serious and sustained enough to destroy complex, protected, and dispersed facilities - pinpoint bombing of a single facility will not end Iran's nuclear program. Iran might respond by attacking Israel, Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia, and oil shipments in the Persian Gulf.
Yoo ends his article:
The United States has assumed the role, once held by Great Britain, of guaranteeing free trade and economic development, spreading liberal values, and maintaining international security. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, though it would impose costs in human lives and political turmoil, would serve these interests and forestall the spread of conflict and terror. The Republican presidential candidates must begin preparing the case for a military strike to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
The truth is that the United States, under its present administration, is the tool of the British Empire - the monetary financial empire which sits like a parasite, sucking the life out of Britain from the City of London and which has never gone away. How much "economic development" is likely to arise from an attack on Iran, which would inevitably expand to include Israel, Russia and China?