Israel's Bold, Risky Attack
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
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 not 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 war 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 a preventive 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.
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.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Tarnished by Oct. 7, Netanyahu's legacy may be reshaped by war with Iran
'Netanyahu has proven that he is a phoenix,' said veteran Israeli journalist and Netanyahu biographer Mazal Mualem. Advertisement Netanyahu's troubled legacy is granted a lifeline The war is far from won. Israel is still vulnerable to Iranian attacks, and whatever political boost Netanyahu gains from the latest developments could dissipate by elections scheduled for next year. He is the same polarizing leader he was yesterday. Internationally, he faces an arrest warrant for charges of war crimes in Gaza. He is widely reviled across the Arab world. And after nearly two years of regionwide conflict, many critics see him as a warmonger responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East. But domestically, where Netanyahu's eyes are always focused, his legacy has been granted a lifeline. Advertisement Many Israelis are attuned to Netanyahu's campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which they view as a major threat to their country and are therefore relieved by the direct involvement of the U.S. military. 'Netanyahu is seen as a very divisive and destructive leader. He is seen as someone who talks a lot and doesn't do anything,' said Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu aide. 'Today, Netanyahu redeemed himself, big time.' In an early morning video statement after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu could barely contain a smile as he thanked President Donald Trump. He said the intervention would 'change history.' It's a stunning turnaround for an Israeli leader who critics and analysts largely wrote off in the days after Oct. 7, when he presided over the deadliest attack in Israel's history. Many hold Netanyahu personally responsible for overseeing policies that enabled Hamas to retain power in Gaza for many years and build up a formidable arsenal. Netanyahu has been buoyed occasionally since then by military successes against Hamas and the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. But with the Gaza war dragging on with no end in sight, and dozens of Israeli hostages still in captivity, his approval ratings have remained low. The week-old assault on Iran, highlighted by Sunday's U.S. attack, grants Netanyahu a chance for salvation. Netanyahu's yearslong focus on Iran The war caps a yearslong focus — some would say obsession — by Netanyahu on Iran and its nuclear program. Since his first term as prime minister in the 1990s, and throughout his current, nearly uninterrupted 16-year rule, he has made challenging Iran's nuclear program his life's work. Advertisement Netanyahu has long portrayed Iran as an existential threat — pointing not only to its nuclear program, but also its development of long-range missiles aimed at Israel and support for hostile militant groups on Israel's borders. Iran became a repeated theme in his speeches to the Israeli and international public. He famously hoisted a cartoon bomb from the dais of U.N. General Assembly as he accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran insists the program is for civilian purposes. At the same time, Netanyahu has made no mention of Israel's own widely suspected nuclear weapons arsenal. This satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows damage at the Fordo enrichment facility in Iran after US strikes on Sunday. Uncredited/Associated Press Netanyahu took significant diplomatic risks to pursue his crusade, including with a 2015 speech to Congress that was organized by Republican lawmakers, angering the Obama administration. During the speech, he railed against a U.S.-led deal on Iran's nuclear program just as negotiators were wrapping up its details. Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the agreement during his first term. Some critics say that it was Netanyahu's laser focus on Iran, and the military and intelligence resources devoted to it, that blinded the Israeli leader and the defense establishment to the threat Hamas in Gaza. Hamas' attack is a stain on Netanyahu's legacy Hamas' attack, in which 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage, blindsided Israel. Netanyahu, who likes to portray himself as a security hawk and the only true guardian of Israel, is seen by many as having promoted a failed strategy in the years preceding the Oct. 7 attack by sending huge amounts of aid into in Gaza under the misconception that Hamas was deterred. Palestinians celebrate by a destroyed Israeli tank at the border fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip, east of Khan Younis, during a surprise attack on Israel, Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023. Hassan Eslaiah/Associated Press In fact, the Palestinian militant group would stage a brutal assault that would crush Israel's vaunted defenses and change the course of history. In the aftermath of Hamas' attack, Netanyahu's public support plummeted. Advertisement Netanyahu shrugged off accountability for Hamas' attacks, pointing a finger at his security chiefs and rejecting demands for a public inquiry into the failures. He says he will answer tough questions about his role after the war, now in its 21st month. Any political boost from the war could fade by elections Netanyahu's work is not done. The war in Gaza grinds on, and Netanyahu still dreams of seeing a normalization deal between Israel and Arab powerhouse Saudi Arabia as part of his legacy. The question remains whether Netanyahu will rebound politically from the Iran war. Polls taken last week showed that Netanyahu would still struggle to form a coalition if elections were held today. Even if he gets a bump from Sunday's U.S. attack, it's not clear how long that might last. Bushinsky compared Netanyahu's potential political predicament to a world leader he likes to compare himself to, Winston Churchill, who, after leading the allies in triumphantly defeating the Nazis in World War II, did not get reelected in a 1945 vote in part because public priorities shifted dramatically. 'Bibi may be 'King of Israel,' Bushinsky said, using a nickname for Netanyahu popular among his supporters, 'but even a king has his limits.'
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Former Israeli ambassador to the U.S.: The number of missiles falling on Israel has fallen
Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., joins CNBC's 'Squawk on the Street' to discuss the conflict with Iran, expectations for what comes next, and more.
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Israel targets Iran's government and a key Tehran prison as Iran launches more attacks on Israel
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Israel hit Iranian government targets in Tehran on Monday in a series of strikes that followed a salvo of missiles and drones fired by Iran at Israel in the wake of the Trump administration's massive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites the day before. The Israeli military also confirmed it struck roads around Iran's Fordo enrichment facility to obstruct access to the site. The underground site was one of those hit in Sunday's attack by the United States on three nuclear facilities. The Israeli military did not elaborate. In Tehran attacks, Israel's Defense Ministry said it hit targets that included the notorious Evin Prison in the Iranian capital and the security headquarters of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards. 'The Iranian dictator will be punished with full force for attacking the Israeli home front,' the ministry said. The strikes also hit Tehran's Palestine Square and other 'military command centers belonging to the Iranian regime,' it said. According to an Israeli official familiar with the government's strategy, Israel is targeting these sites to put pressure on the Iranian administration but is not actively seeking to topple it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal government deliberations. The Israeli move came just hours after President Trump wrote on his Truth Social website: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' In Vienna, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said he expected there to be heavy damage at the Fordo facility already following the Sunday's U.S. airstrike there with sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. 'Given the explosive payload utilized ... very significant damage ... is expected to have occurred,' said Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. With the strikes on Sunday on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States inserted itself into Israel's war, prompting fears of a wider regional conflict. Iran said the U.S. had crossed 'a very big red line' with its risky gambit to strike the three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. Several Iranian officials, including Atomic Energy Organization of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi, have claimed Iran removed nuclear material from targeted sites ahead of time. Grossi told the IAEA board of governors on Monday that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had informed him on June 13 that Iran would 'adopt special measures to protect nuclear equipment and materials.' 'I indicated that any transfer of nuclear material from a safeguarded facility to another location in Iran must be declared,' Grossi said, without saying whether Iran had responded. Iran described its Monday attack on Israel as a new wave of its Operation 'True Promise 3,' saying it was targeting the Israeli cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv, according to Iranian state television. Explosions were also heard in Jerusalem, possibly from air defense systems in action, and Israel's Magen David Adom emergency rescue service said there had been no reports of injuries. In Iran, witnesses reported Israeli airstrikes hit areas around Iran's capital, Tehran, around midday. Iranian state television confirmed one Israeli strike hit the gate of Evin Prison. The report shared what appeared to be black-and-white-surveillance footage of the strike. The prison is known for holding dual nationals and Westerners often used by Iran as bargaining chips in negotiations with the West. Evin also has specialized units for political prisoners and those with Western ties, run by the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which answers only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The facility is the target of both U.S. and European Union sanctions. There were no immediate reports of casualties in Iran or significant damage, though the Tasnim semi-official news agency said there had been a power cut reported outside of Tehran following the Israeli strikes. Iranian state television also aired footage it described as being shot inside Evin, with prisoners under control inside the facility. Earlier Monday, Iranian Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, the chief of joint staff of armed forces, warned Washington its strikes had given Iranian forces a 'free hand ' to 'act against U.S. interests and its army.' Tens of thousands of American troops are based in the Middle East, many in locations within range of short-range Iranian missiles. The U.S. described its Sunday attack on the Fordo and Natanz enrichment facilities, as well as the Isfahan nuclear site, as a one-off to take out Iran's nuclear program, but Trump has warned of additional strikes if Tehran retaliates. Mousavi described the American attacks as violating Iran's sovereignty and being tantamount to invading the country, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. Russia is one of Iran's closest allies and on Monday, President Vladimir Putin said after meeting in Moscow with Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, that they had explored 'how we can get out of today's situation.' Putin called the Israeli and American attacks on Iran an 'absolutely unprovoked aggression.' Elsewhere, calls continued for de-escalation and the return to diplomacy to try and resolve the conflict. Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the U.S., France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. In Brussels, the European Union's top diplomat said the bloc remained 'very much focused on the diplomatic solution.' 'The concerns of retaliation and this war escalating are huge,' Kaja Kallas said at the start of a foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels where Iran has jumped to the top of the agenda. 'Especially closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is something that would be extremely dangerous and not good for anybody,' Kallas said, referring to a maritime route crucial for oil transport. After Sunday's attacks, Iranian officials repeated their longtime threats of possibly closing the key shipping lane. Rising, Gambrell and Lidman write for the Associated Press. Lidman reported from Tel Aviv. AP writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem, Elise Morton in London, Geir Moulson in Berlin, Ella Joyner in Brussels and Stephanie Liechtenstein in Vienna contributed to this report.
