Israel's Preventive War

At the end of the classic 1972 film The Godfather, the new don of the family, Michael Corleone, attends a baptism while his men wipe out the heads of the other New York mafia families—all of them Michael's enemies, and all intending one day to do him harm. Rather than wait for their eventual attacks, Michael dispatched them himself. 'Today, I settled all family business,' Michael says to his traitorous brother-in-law, before having him killed.
Tonight, the Israelis launched a broad sweeping attack on Iran that seems like an attempt to settle, so to speak, all family business. The Israeli government has characterized this offensive as a 'preemptive' strike on Iran: 'We are now in a strategic window of opportunity and close to a point of no return, and we had no choice but to take action,' an Israeli military official told reporters. Israeli spokespeople suggest that these attacks, named Operation Rising Lion, could go on for weeks.
But calling this a 'preemptive' strike is questionable. The Israelis, from what we know so far, are engaged in a preventive war: They are removing the source of a threat by surprise, on their own timetable and on terms they find favorable. They may be justified in doing so, but such actions carry great moral and practical risks.
Preemptive attacks, in both international law and the historical traditions of war, are spoiling attacks, meant to thwart an imminent attack. In both tradition and law, this form of self-defense is perfectly defensible, similar to the principle in domestic law that when a person cocks a fist or pulls a gun, the intended victim does need to stand there and wait to get punched or shot.
Preventive attacks, however, have long been viewed in the international community as both illegal and immoral. History is full of ill-advised preventive actions, including the Spartan invasion of Athens in the 5th century B.C., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the American war on Iraq in 2002. Sometimes, such wars are the product of hubris, miscalculation, or plain fear, but they all share the common trait that a choice was made to go to war based on a threat that was real, but not imminent.
The Israelis, ironically, are in the case books as the clearest example of a legitimate preemptive attack. In 1967, Israel got the jump on an Arab coalition that had been so obvious in its march to war that it was literally broadcasting its intention to destroy Israel while its troops massed for an offensive. Indeed, international law experts have noted that the 1967 is so clear that it is not much use as a precedent, because most enemies are not blockheaded enough to assemble an army and declare their intention to invade. (Of course, the Israelis could argue that they are already at war with Iran, a country that has launched many missiles at them and directed years of proxy attacks on their people and their military, which would be a far stronger case.)
Most threats, instead, are a judgment call based on timing. What constitutes an imminent threat? The Israelis seem to have made the same judgment with respect to Iran that America made in Iraq: A regime that has expressed genocidal intent is trying to gain nuclear weapons; possession of nuclear weapons will mean, with absolute certainty, use of nuclear weapons; and therefore, waiting until the threat gels and becomes obvious is too dangerous.
Such a calculation is not irrational, especially in the nuclear age, when armies no longer need to mobilize for nations to inflict ghastly damage on each other. To show infinite patience until a threat—especially a nuclear threat—becomes so obvious that the window for action shrinks to hours or minutes requires the coldest of cold blood. Few world leaders are willing to take such risks. 'We no longer live in a world,' President John F. Kennedy said presciently during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, 'where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.'
But if the Israelis are setting the terms of the debate by claiming that they are embarking on a preemptive war—and not merely a preventative one—then they will have to make the case to the international community that the threat from the Iranian nuclear program required action now, without any further delay. Jerusalem may well be able to make this argument; if the Iranians were, as the Israelis claim, just a few weeks from assembling a small nuclear arsenal, and the ability to strike that capacity was receding from Israeli reach, then the argument for preemption is strong—especially because Iranian leaders have so often expressed their wish to wipe Israel from the map.
But that rationale is complicated now by the sweep and breadth of the Israeli offensive. Several senior Iranian leaders, including from the Iranian General Staff, are reportedly dead, which suggests that Israel's goal might be decapitation of the Iranian regime, perhaps with the aim of regime change. If that is the case, then the Israelis should not box themselves in—as the Americans unwisely did in 2002—with shaky rationales about preemption. They should simply admit that they have reached a decision to end, once and for all, the existential threat to Israel from Iran.
Iran's history and its unrelenting enmity to Israel could justify such a war. A decade ago, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the 'barbaric, wolflike' and 'infanticidal' Israeli regime has 'no cure but to be annihilated.' The Iranians cannot now complain if the Israelis are taking them seriously; the United States has launched military actions over far weaker threats to American security. But such decisions are laden with immense danger, especially because—as the great student of armed conflict, Carl von Clausewitz, warned long ago—there is no such thing as utter finality in war. The Israeli campaign may be necessary, but so far, it seems less like a preemptive action and more like something that another philosopher of war, Michael Corleone, would easily have recognized.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Los Angeles Times

38 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

With 40,000 troops in the region, U.S. braces for response as Iran weighs its options

WASHINGTON — Fallout from President Trump's historic gamble to strike Iran's nuclear facilities reverberated across the Middle East Sunday, as Washington braced for an unpredictable response from a cornered but determined Islamic Republic. While the Iranian government downplayed the impact of the U.S. attack, noting the depths of its nuclear know-how built over decades of study, U.S. military officials said its precision strikes against Iran's three main nuclear facilities caused 'extremely severe damage and destruction.' A senior Israeli official told The Times that Jerusalem was so satisfied with the operation that it was prepared to suspend hostilities if Iran ends its missile salvos against Israeli territory. 'We are ready to be done,' the Israeli official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. As the dust settled, the sun rose and satellite imagery emerged of the wreckage, the main question among Trump administration officials became how Tehran would respond — both militarily, against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and around the world, as well as with the remnants of its nuclear program, with so much of it destroyed. Tehran's nuclear-armed allies, in Russia and North Korea, have been critical of the military campaign, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raising the prospect of Moscow giving Iran a nuclear warhead in response to the attacks. The Israeli official dismissed that idea, alluding to direct talks with Moscow over the Iranian program. 'We are not concerned,' the official said. Trump's military action, dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' was a contingency years in the making, prepared and much feared by Trump's predecessors over two decades as a desperate last resort to a nuclear Iran. Ever since Tehran resumed its fissile enrichment program in 2005, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have warned that the Islamic Republic could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. But a constellation of diplomatic talks and complex agreements have failed to dissuade Tehran from a fundamental principle of a 'right to enrich' uranium — near to weapons grade — on its own soil. Despite the dramatic nature of the U.S. air raid, few in Washington expressed an appetite for a prolonged U.S. war with Iran and echoed Israel's interest in a truce after assessing its initial operations a success. Vice President JD Vance denied that the United States was 'at war' with Iran on Sunday, telling CBS that the nation is, instead, 'at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But the prospect of another full-scale U.S. war in the Middle East, made palpable by the weekend strikes, shook Capitol Hill on Sunday, compelling Democrats who have long advocated a tough approach to Iran to push for a vote to restrict Trump under the War Powers Act. More than 60 members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, called on the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization for any further action. At least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined in the call. The Pentagon said that seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers deployed a total of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs known as 'bunker busters,' for their ability to destroy facilities buried deep underground — against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The U.S. operation followed an Israeli campaign that began last week with strikes against Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities, scientists and research facilities, as well as against military generals, ballistic missile launch pads and storage depots. While the United States and Israel believe that Saturday's strikes were a strategic victory, some concern remains that Iran may have removed critical equipment and materiel from its site in Fordow — an enrichment facility that had been burrowed into the side of a mountain — to an undisclosed location before the U.S. operation began, the Israeli official said. 'That remains a question mark,' the official added, while expressing confidence that Israeli intelligence would be aware of any other significant nuclear facilities. Addressing the nation on the attacks on Saturday night, Trump warned Iran that U.S. attacks could continue if it refuses to give up on its nuclear program. 'There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said, flanked by his vice president, national security advisor and secretary of defense. 'Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.' Across the region Sunday, the question paramount on observers' minds was what shape Iran's response would take. Iranian officials downplayed the strikes' impact, acknowledging damage to nuclear facilities but that the know-how remained intact. 'They [the United States and Israel] should know this industry has roots in our country, and the roots of this national industry cannot be destroyed,' said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, according to a Sunday interview with the semi-official Tasnim News Agency. 'Of course, we have suffered some losses, but this is not the first time that the industry has suffered damage. … Naturally, this industry must continue and its growth will not stop.' Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster IRIB, said the three targeted nuclear sites had already been emptied some time before the attacks and that they 'didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out.' Other officials, including leaders in the targeted areas in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, reassured residents there was no nuclear contamination as a result of the strikes and that they could 'go on with their lives,' according to a statement Sunday from government spokesperson Fatemah Mohajerani. The U.S. attacks drew swift pleas for restraint from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which issued statements calling on all parties to de-escalate. Iraq, meanwhile, said the U.S. escalation 'constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East,' according to an interview with its government spokesman on Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera. Oman, a key mediator in the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, was more scathing, expressing what it said was its 'denunciation and condemnation' of the U.S.'s attacks. In Europe, as well, governments urged caution and affirmed support for Israel. 'We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security,' France, Germany, and Italy, known as the E3, said in a statement. 'Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.' The last significant face-off between Iran and the United States happened during Trump's first term, when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020. That attack spurred predictions of a furious retaliation, with fears of Tehran deploying its missile arsenal or activating its network of regional militias to attack U.S. forces and interests across Washington's footprint in the region. Instead, Tehran reacted with little more than an openly telegraphed ballistic missile barrage on a U.S. base in Iraq. Iran's options are even more limited this time. Much of that network — known as the 'Axis of Resistance' and which included militias and pro-Tehran governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen — lies incapacitated after more than 20 months of Israeli attacks. Allies such as Russia and China, though issuing condemnations of the U.S. attack, appear to have little appetite for involvement beyond statements and offers of mediation. And how much remains of Tehran's missile capacity is unclear, with the Israeli official estimating roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles – half of their capacity before the most recent conflict started – remaining available to them. Nevertheless, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the United States should expect 'regrettable responses.' 'Instead of learning from repeated failures, Washington effectively placed itself on the front lines of aggression by directly attacking peaceful installations,' said a statement from the Guard Corps on Sunday. It hinted that its targets would include U.S. military presence in the region. 'The number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability,' the statement said. The United States has more than 40,000 stationed in the region, according to Pentagon figures, and has bases in at least 10 countries in the region, not to mention a significant presence at sea. Yet experts say the likeliest scenario would involve disruptions to shipping lanes, with Iran leveraging its control of the Strait of Hormuz, an oil transit chokepoint handling a fifth of the world's energy flows, that is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point; or calling on Yemen's Houthis to intensify their harassment campaign of merchant vessels on the Red Sea. It a situation in which Iran has experience: During its conflict with Iraq in the eighties, Tehran engaged in the the so-called 'Tanker War,' attacked hundreds of Iraqi ships near Hormuz and entering into direct confrontations with the U.S. Navy. Shippers are already girding themselves for disruptions. But Danish shipping giant Maersk said it was continuing to use the Strait of Hormuz for the time being. 'We will continuously monitor the security risk to our specific vessels in the region and are ready to take operational actions as needed,' Maersk said in a statement. Wilner reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.

38 minutes ago

Sources: Pentagon prepared Iran plans as final attempts at diplomacy failed

President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan quietly tried to arrange a meeting between senior U.S. and Iranian officials in Istanbul last week, two officials told ABC News. Erdoğan called Trump on Monday during the G7 Summit and suggested a meeting in Istanbul for the next day, those officials said. That meeting would never happen. Iran's supreme leader, fearing assassination, went into hiding and couldn't be reached to approve the meeting, those U.S. officials told ABC News. The White House declined to comment. Axios was first to report the details. The president's extraordinary action followed weeks of tension and shifting messages. When we traveled with the president to his Bedminster golf club on the weekend of June 8, there was a sudden shift in schedule: The president would no longer be traveling back to the White House but instead, he would be traveling to Camp David on Sunday. Among the topics the president was briefed on then was the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, according to sources. And, more specifically, Israel's plans to move forward with a strike on Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would later convey his plans directly to Trump. Since the Israeli initial strike on Iran, Netanyahu and the president have remained in close contact -- speaking almost every single day, multiple sources tell ABC News. Just one week ago, in a brief phone interview, the president told me he wouldn't give Iran a deadline. He mulled the possibility of Russia serving as a mediator, an idea he later abandoned. He said it was 'possible' the U.S. could get involved, but the administration was not there yet. He would then abruptly leave the G7 Summit, traveling back to the White House, holding meetings with his national security team day after day. His tone started to change surrounding Iran. It appeared he was warming up to the idea of the United States getting involved. We reported the president approved attack plans, but did not make a final decision. He set that two-week deadline —giving Iran 14 days max to come to the table. Two days later, the U.S. would strike. The president departed his Bedminster golf club Saturday afternoon and returned to the White House for a national security meeting. The senior administration official said that in the week leading up to the strike, efforts were made for diplomacy, mainly through the president's special envoy, Steve Witkoff. As those efforts continued, the Pentagon simultaneously prepared the operation. By the end of the week, there was a growing belief among U.S. officials that Iran was not going to come to the table to reach a deal, according to sources. I'm told Trump was briefed daily on Israel's efforts and the operation itself as he decided whether to move forward. He stayed in close contact with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth while traveling to Bedminster, receiving updates until he made the final call.

UPI

41 minutes ago

• UPI

Iran, Israel exchange airstrikes as US officials divided over bombing

1 of 3 | Israeli security stands in front of a residential building hit by an Iranian ballistic missile in Tel Aviv early Sunday morning, June 22, 2025. Iran launched two waves of missiles at Israel following the American bombing of its nuclear sites. Photo by Debbie Hill/ UPI | License Photo June 22 (UPI) -- Iran and Israel exchanged targeted airstrikes Sunday after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, leaving his administration and lawmakers divided over U.S. involvement. "We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program," Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. It marked the first major official rhetoric that the United States is indeed "at war." Vance declined to confirm that Iran's nuclear sites were completely destroyed, saying that the U.S. has "substantially delayed" Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. His comments come after Russia said Sunday that other countries could provide Iran with nuclear weapons. The strike by the Trump administration has divided his supporters. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, criticized what she called "neocon warmongers" in a post on social media Sunday afternoon. "America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American," the lawmaker wrote in her post. "American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military-industrial base profits. I'm sick of it. I can easily say I support nuclear-armed Israel's right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don't want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel's wars." Rep. Thomas Massie, another Republican, went as far to call the strike on Iran "not Constitutional" in his own post. He later criticized fellow Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson for stating that Trump "made the right call" with the airstrike. "Why didn't you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?" Massie said in his remarks to Johnson. He reiterated that point Sunday in an interview with CBS News' "Face the Nation." Massie was joined on "Face the Nation" by fellow lawmaker Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, with whom he worked last week to introduce a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. forces from striking Iran without authorization from Congress. Khanna said in the interview that Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed a desire for Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but the lawmaker noted that Iran had already been under a nuclear deal that the United States withdrew from. According to Khanna, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which was negotiated by Iran, the United States and the European Union in 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency did not find a single violation. "In the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of use of military force," Massie added. "We haven't had that." The Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement Sunday that the Israeli Air Force used 30 fighter jets to attack dozens of military targets across Iran. "As part of the wave of attacks, fighter jets first attacked the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile headquarters in the Yazd region, where long-range Khoramshahr missiles were stored," the IDF said. "From this headquarters, approximately 60 missiles were launched towards the State of Israel." The IDF added that it also hit missile launchers and military sites for the production of air defense batteries, and a drone warehouse in Isfahan, Bushehr and Ahvaz. Air raid sirens sounded across most of Israel on Sunday as Israeli Police acknowledged impacts from Iranian missiles on Sunday, including a strike in Tel Aviv that left at least six people with minor injuries, while videos shared on social media purportedly showed damage in Haifa. Meanwhile, Iranian state media reported Sunday that the Houthis -- formally known as Ansarullah -- expressed support for Iran after the U.S. strikes and would "stand by any Arab or Islamic country against U.S. aggression."