The Logic of Preemption Drove Israel's Attack — But Has the Target Changed?

JERUSALEM — The war is five days old, and, like most Israelis, we are getting about as much sleep as the parents of a newborn, roused twice a night and running to our shelter. There, our condo neighbors gather, bantering through the newscasts, damp and in doubt.
Living in Jerusalem half the year — the other half, I'm teaching at Dartmouth — this is hardly our first emergency. And our home is just a mile-and-a-half from the Al Aqsa mosque, so we don't feel particularly vulnerable to a targeted attack by Islamists.
Yet high overhead, as sirens scramble us at 4 a.m., one can see the trailing flames of missiles headed west, to the coastal cities; and see flashes and hear the booms of anti-missile defenses. The danger for us is falling debris; It can penetrate two stories, nothing like the thousand-pound-plus warheads that have shredded multi-story apartments in Bat Yam and labs in Rehovot, but not to be toyed with.
On those newscasts, as on television nightly, panels of security pundits, themselves mostly former generals and Mossad agents, are good with numbers and not particularly so at hiding their pride. The planning, over many years, was inarguably meticulous; the execution, apparently faultless. Seventy percent of Israelis support the strike, only 16 percent are opposed. Even opposition politicians, long disdainful of Benjamin Netanyahu's assaults on democratic norms, salute the air force, intelligence services, and, grudgingly, Bibi's pluck, sequence and timing.
First, the radar was targeted, they say, then the anti-aircraft missile batteries, then the missile manufacturing centers, then the chain-of-command. These agents embedded on the ground, those drone components smuggled in; this adviser, this commander, these nuclear scientists 'eliminated' — leaders of the Revolutionary Guard and other nuclear enablers are, presumably, fair game.
Now, we control the skies over Tehran, moreover, and refueling routes all the way to Iran. We've bombed even the regime's television broadcast. We're getting to nuclear facilities, too — at least those above ground, at Natanz and elsewhere, which unlike Fordow, 200 feet underground, can be reached without privileged American ordinance. And if we continue with such impressive success, will not Donald Trump be tempted to himself bust bunkers and, thus seal (and claim) victory?
For our part, us civilians are exhorted to Stoicism, 'kor ruach,' 'composure.' This, we are told, is what existential war feels like. 'Jews know better than anyone,' an otherwise pokerfaced Channel Twelve correspondent declaims, 'that when somebody says he means to kill you, you have to believe them — and relieve them of their means to do so.' As I write, I can hear squadrons of Israeli Air Force fighters in the skies, heading east in waves. Soon enough, new missiles will fly, and I'm preparing to be composed.
Indeed, those of us who've followed the diplomatic twists in the region since the 1960s feel mostly out of our depth. It has been our job to consider motivation on both sides: histories, ideologies, grievances.
For our security experts, in contrast, analysis may entail an assessment of, yes, an enemy's motivation, but only in tandem with its military capability; and then, motivation boils down to military capability, because, 'Jews know,' if enemies have the capability to hurt you, they will have the motivation to do so. The inference for action is preemption, deterrence, intimidation. Discussion of diplomatic alternatives to 'kinetic action' is vaguely effete.
Perhaps this is my own failure of imagination, but I am not so sure that this is what existential war feels like. Anyway, I have questions — worse, I cannot see how, given our experts' preemptive logic, this war ends.
Make no mistake, I would be delighted to see the Iranian regime fall to a liberal-democratic counter revolution. I have never been to Iran, but I have spoken with enough refugee officials over 40 years to be persuaded that a large majority of educated Iranians would share in that delight. By all means, let's see our region's Shiite-jihadist-theocrats discredited and defeated. That would leave only Sunni-jihadist-theocrats and Jewish Land-of-Israel-theocrats to be discredited and defeated.
But can the Israeli Air Force achieve that end? Doubtful. And yet, has not Benjamin Netanyahu — whom, until the war, a vast majority of Israelis wanted gone — maneuvered us into a war of attrition in which we can presumably settle for nothing less?
Let us concede that, for Israel, an Iranian atomic bomb would be a disaster. Incidentally, Israel has a second strike capacity, 100 nuclear warheads of its own, many sitting on missiles in at least six submarines off the Mediterranean coast; so you have to concede, also, that the fine morning when the Supreme Leader decides to incinerate Tel Aviv (simultaneously irradiating most of Palestine) would be the same morning he decides to incinerate Tehran, Isfahan and Qom. But never mind.
Sensible people don't want Iranian clerics to have the bomb, potentially giving it to terrorists; or enjoying a nuclear umbrella should they decide to push around weaker regimes, say, the Emirates across a narrow strait. And let's assume, in addition, that the International Atomic Energy Agency was right to sound the alarm, namely, that Iran had amassed sufficient material for nine atomic bombs, awaiting further enrichment and weaponization.
Shame on me, but I always imagined that an attack to preempt Iran's nuclear program would be a last resort after negotiations failed. That it would be more 'surgically' focused on nuclear installations, and missiles that might be used to deliver an atomic bomb — not all missiles — and, anyway, undertaken with American military partnership and European diplomatic support. Then, one might hope to return to negotiations about the future. (Only a quarter of Israelis think, even now, that Israel can get safer without American support.)
Besides, a limited action would notionally have had a more limited military blowback, putting the burden of escalation on Iran, which would have just been proven comparatively helpless to prevent a foreign attack. True, the regime might then strike back against, say, Aramco assets as it did in 2019. But then, the Gulf states would all rally to the U.S. and, implicitly, Israel, and form an alliance much more menacing to Iran than Iran, Hezbollah and Houthis would be to them. Such an alliance, twinned with further economic strangulation, might well have prompted dissident Iranians to take back the streets.
What I did not imagine was that Israel would act alone, even assuming a 'green light' from Washington. Isn't Iran, even weakened, 10 times Israel's population and 75 times the landmass; doesn't it graduate five times the number of engineers a year? With the planet's fourth largest reserves of oil, has it no staying power? This isn't Hezbollah.
Nor did I imagine that the regime's missile construction capacity itself, leadership, chain-of-command, scientists, oil facilities — all of these — would qualify as targeted infrastructure. Or, that in the course of a presumably preemptive war, Iranian missiles would themselves prove more seriously menacing than the atom bombs they would hypothetically (and almost certainly never) deliver. Now, given this inescapable conclusion, does not Israel have to 'eliminate' Iranian leaders who control those missiles and whose hatred we have to 'believe'?
What have we learned from the past four days, after all? Just from missiles, 24 people in Israel have died and 500 have been wounded. Israel's cosmopolitan economy has been paralyzed; and all air travel and cargo to and from the country has been stopped. Every night, virtually the entire population, to bring things back to my shelter, lives in fear and disruption.
The big question, in other words, is whether Netanyahu has not set his sights on regime change. Whether his sights have not been blinkered by a new logic deriving from the manifest results of his own escalation — that Iran's nuclear program and missile program are one; that given the danger to Israel merely from the missiles, leaving the Ayatollah's regime in charge itself amounts to an existential threat.
'As we achieve our objective,' Netanyahu addressed Iranians on YouTube last Saturday, 'we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your objective, your freedom.' On Monday, he told ABC News that killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would 'not escalate the conflict but end the conflict.' How does one retreat from this logic any more than from the demand for total victory in Gaza?
Most vexing of all, why, under these circumstances, should the Iranian regime stop the war? It says it will be prepared to put enrichment back under international monitoring, as under the previous nuclear deal. But, for now, why capitulate?
Why not launch a dozen missiles every night, or every third night, keeping Israeli business depressed, our airspace closed, our sleep foiled — and watch us squirm? Why not tie up virtually the entire Israeli Air Force looking for missile development in a territory the size of Alaska and over four hours away? Why not deplete our reserves of anti-missile missiles that cost a couple of million dollars each?
True enough, the Israeli Air Force has destroyed a great many missile manufacturing sites. More damage will be inflicted. But destroy Iran's very capacity to produce missiles? Does not the Iranian regime, too, see itself in a war for survival — a 'war,' at any rate, according to the Supreme Leader — and does it not have the resources to sustain a war economy?
Finally, will Bibi, of all people, the leader in charge of Gazan carnage, bring Iranians to overthrow their government? Israel has now killed over 200 Iranian citizens by going after human 'nuclear infrastructure' in various residential complexes. Just because ordinary people disdain the regime, that does not mean they welcome Israelis buzzing their neighborhoods, blowing up every economic asset from which the regime's missile program could conceivably profit from. Even some people who may 'not agree with the Establishment,' the journalist Abas Aslani told CNN on Monday, agree that Israel must be answered with 'a crushing response.'
All of this, I suppose, does indeed toss the ball to Donald Trump. But has he ever played this position before — is he able to see more than one move ahead, and doesn't that move have to enhance his personal popularity? This week, Bibi, and the Israeli military more generally, are the winners he wants to take credit for. But next week? What if the Iranian regime just hangs tough and keeps the war going? Does Israel, in the long run, have the 'the cards'? Does all of MAGA want this?
Israel, in short, may have taken a five-foot leap over a six-foot pit. The country has always been good at surprise attacks, one former Israeli general put it, but less so at sustained resistance. And counting on Trump to help — say, by bombing Fordow, or trying to extract a 'better deal,' or new sanctions, or all three — assumes, first, that he'll be able to see how Israel has fallen into a trap set by its own audacious strike, and, second, that he'll see an advantage in committing American forces, and risking oil infrastructure in the Gulf states, to release Israel from that trap.
Trump may help, if that's the word. He is warning Iranians to 'evacuate Tehran.' He is sending the Nimitz strike group to the region. I am no longer sure what to hope for, except for the madness to be, well, trumped by quick movement to the regional settlement that's been dangled by the Saudis since the Gaza war began — a forlorn hope, perhaps.
In any case, questions, not just sirens, are enough to keep us up at night.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

44 minutes ago

• The Hill

The Memo: Trump pumps brakes, lightly, on joining Israel's assault on Iran

President Trump is pumping the brakes, at least for the moment, on direct U.S. engagement in Israel's assault on Iran. On Thursday, Trump determined that he would make a 'decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' according to a statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Trump had also determined there was 'a chance for substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future,' Leavitt said. But that pause could be unpaused at any moment, given Trump's mercurial nature, the volatility of the situation in the Middle East and the voices within American politics arguing that the time is ripe for the U.S. to deliver a decisive blow on Israel's behalf. Trump on Friday said the two-week period was the 'maximum' period that would elapse before he decided on the question. That left the overall positive muddy — but it also gave Trump some room to maneuver. And even his current equivocal stance shows him edging back toward his more anti-interventionist 'America First' instincts. That is a turn from earlier in the week, when Trump had seemed right on the brink of sending American forces in some capacity to back Israel's assault. At that point, he had bragged on social media that 'we' had control of the skies over Iran and, in a separate all-caps post, appeared to demand Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' Trump's fuzzy position since then reflects several different facts. First, for all his aggressiveness on the domestic stage, Trump has long been skeptical of foreign adventuring. In his first run for the presidency — a campaign that began a decade ago — he was critical of former President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, to an extent that was highly unusual for a Republican candidate. Relatedly, Trump's apparent flirting with war provoked significant pushback from influential figures within his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. The most prominent of these is Tucker Carlson, whose skeptical questioning of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) during a long interview went viral in recent days. Carlson, former chief strategist Steve Bannon and widely-watched influencers on the online right such as Theo Von have all argued that the dangers of getting sucked into a new Middle East war are acute. Then there is broader American public opinion to consider. There seems remarkably little appetite among the public for direct U.S. involvement in an attack on Iran. A Washington Post poll released on Wednesday found 45 percent opposed to U.S. airstrikes on Iran, just 25 percent supporting such action and 30 percent undecided. So, it's no surprise that Trump is returning to a long-established tactic of playing for time. As some sardonic media reports have noted since Thursday's 'two weeks' pronouncement, this is a timescale he has cited in the past for things that have never ultimately happened. One example was a promise to produce a detailed health plan that would purportedly replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed under President Obama. He has also cited 'two weeks' as a timeframe by which various facets of his views on the war in Ukraine would become clear. On Iran, the president is to be sure under some pressure from those who believe this is a rare opportunity to strike at Iran, debilitate its uranium enrichment capacity for good and perhaps topple the nation's theocratic leadership. This school of thought holds that Iranian proxies and allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the former regime of Bashar Assad in Syria have been so worn down (in the case of the first two) or removed (in the case of Assad) that stronger action is possible today than would have been the case even a couple of years ago. The Trump administration has its fair share of vehement supporters of expansive Israeli power. For example, Trump's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has in the past been supportive of Israel's decades-long occupation of the West Bank, despite that occupation being deemed illegal by numerous interpretations of international law. Huckabee also wrote Trump a message in recent days — which Trump duly published on social media — in which the ambassador suggested that Trump was positioned to act as a vehicle of divine will regarding Israel. Yet another wrinkle in Trump's approach is his seeming split with his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, on the question of whether Iran is actively seeking a nuclear weapon. Gabbard's belief flies in the face of the purported Israeli rationale for the attack on Iran. But on Friday, Trump was confronted by a reporter on the question. The reporter asked what evidence Trump had that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and said U.S. intelligence had reported that it had not seen such evidence. 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong,' Mr. Trump insisted. 'Who in the intelligence community said that?' When the reporter named Gabbard, Trump shot back, 'She's wrong.' Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, is renowned for her general skepticism of American interventionism. Trump appears to yet hold out some hope of a breakthrough in talks with Iran. His envoy Steve Witkoff remains engaged on the issue. Any major Iranian concessions at this point would allow Trump to claim — as he often likes to do — that his high-risk approach to diplomatic negotiation had paid off. On the other hand, it's hard to see how any deal between the U.S. and Iran would placate the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, the possibility of such a deal in the first place is seen by some as one of the reasons Netanyahu launched the assault on Iran in the first place. For now, Trump has bought himself some time. But there are risks in every direction. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

American Military News

an hour ago

• American Military News

Videos/Pics: Iran's ‘terrorist tyrants' strike Israeli hospital, Israel vows revenge

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a major warning to Iran on Thursday after Iran's 'terrorist tyrants' launched missiles and struck a hospital in Israel amid the increased conflict between the two countries following Israel's preemptive strikes against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs last week. In a translated post on X, formerly Twitter, Netanyahu wrote, 'This morning, Iran's terrorist tyrants launched missiles at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba and at a civilian population in the center of the country. We will exact the full price from the tyrants in Tehran.' Trey Yingst, chief foreign correspondent for Fox News, reported that Israel's Soroka Hospital, which he confirmed was the largest hospital in the southern region of Israel, sustained 'significant damage' after taking a 'direct hit from an Iranian ballistic missile.' A video shared by the Israeli government shows people running in the aftermath of the Iranian missile strike against the Soroka Hospital. The Israeli government noted that the ballistic missile hit a 'major medical center,' adding, 'We will not stand by. We will continue doing what must be done to defend our people.' The Iranian regime targeted Soroka Hospital in Beersheba with a ballistic missile—hitting a major medical center. We will not stand by. We will continue doing what must be done to defend our people. — Israel ישראל (@Israel) June 19, 2025 In a post on social media, Israeli President Isaac Herzog shared pictures of the remains of the Soroka Hospital. The Israeli president explained that he visited the hospital on Thursday morning and was met by doctors, nurses, and patients. READ MORE: Videos: 60 Israeli jets target Iran's ballistic missiles 'We stood together and looked at the destruction and devastation caused by an Iranian missile fired indiscriminately with the sole intention to take innocent lives in a hospital,' Herzog stated. 'This is a war crime!' I arrived at Soroka Hospital in Be'er Sheva this morning, to be greeted by Director of the hospital, Prof. Shlomi Kodesh, along with doctors, nurses, and patients, Jews and Muslims, from all walks of life from across the beautiful Negev. We stood together and looked at the… — יצחק הרצוג Isaac Herzog (@Isaac_Herzog) June 19, 2025 The Israeli Ministry of Health confirmed that 271 people were hospitalized following Iran's overnight attacks. The Israeli Ministry of Health also confirmed that at least 71 people were hospitalized due to the missile strike against the Soroka Hospital. Speaking from the site of the hospital attack on Thursday, Netanyahu said, 'We accurately hit nuclear targets and missile targets, and they hit a hospital, where people can't even get up and run away. They are harming not far from here – there is a children's and infants' ward here. That's the whole difference in a democracy that acts according to the law to save itself from these murderers and against these murderers who want to destroy each and every one of us. Every single one of us. Down to the last one of us. I think that says it all.' אני כאן בבית החולים סורוקה בבאר שבע יחד עם שר הבריאות וסגן השר אלמוג כהן, איש הדרום, ולא בפעם הראשונה עם מנהל בית החולים סורוקה. אנחנו רואים כאן את כל ההבדל. אנחנו פוגעים במדויק במטרות גרעין ומטרות טילים, והם פוגעים בבית חולים, שאנשים לא יכולים לקום ולברוח אפילו. הם פוגעים לא… — Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) June 19, 2025

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

Graph Shows US Births Decline Over 50 Years

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Newsweek has created a graph to show how births in the United States have declined over the last 50 years. This has happened for every age group, fluctuating across the decades, rising steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, and declining sharply after 2008, according to the U.N. Population Division. The Context America is one of many countries around the world struggling with falling birth rates. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. The Birth Rate Situation In America Different age groups have been affected differently by the shift in births. While mothers between the ages of 50 and 54 had no babies in 1975, this number gradually increased to more than 100 over the years and was 159 in 2024. Conversely, teen pregnancies have drastically and consistently declined since 1975, when there were 599,926 before this number started to go down in the early 2000s, to 136,376 in 2024. The issue with a lower number of births, taking place while the elderly live longer, means that is that the country is headed for a time when there are more elderly, dependent people than there are working-age people. At the beginning of this year, a report by the McKinsey Global Institute warned that major economies are heading toward a "population collapse" by 2100 because of falling fertility rates. Trump said during a speech in December: "We want more babies, to put it nicely." Many trying to tackle this issue have focused on public health policies and financial plans, often citing the 2008 financial crisis, its effect on housing, inflation and pay as a major contributor to why people delay having children, have fewer of them or to not have them at all. Parental leave, improved childcare services, and financial independence in general are all things advocates call for in the hopes of making it easier for people to have children. Earlier this month, Trump announced a $1,000 tax-deferred investment account for American babies born during his second term. The White House said the so-called "Trump Accounts" will "afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning." Meanwhile, the United States could make childbirth free for privately insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. Beth Jarosz, a senior program director of U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, said that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Culture's Impact On America's Birth Rates However, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it, too, is facing a birth rate crisis. The Nordic country offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged 1 or older in 2008. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Newsweekspoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health, said. American Vice President JD Vance touched on cultural changes when he said in January: "We failed a generation not only by permitting a culture of abortion on demand but also by neglecting to help young parents achieve the ingredients they need to lead a happy and meaningful life. "Our society has failed to recognize the obligation that one generation has to another as a core part of living in a society. So let me say very simply, I want more babies in the United States of America."