Israels mutiger, riskanter Angriff

Last night, the Israelis launched a broad, sweeping attack on Iran. The Israeli government has characterized this offensive as a “preemptive” strike and suggested that these attacks could go on for weeks.

“But calling this a ‘preemptive’ strike is questionable,” Tom Nichols writes. “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 meant to thwart an imminent attack. “Preventive attacks, however, have long been viewed in the international community as both illegal and immoral,” Nichols continues. “History is full of ill-advised preventive actions, including the Spartan invasion of Athens in the fifth century B.C.E., 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.”

Most threats 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 regarding 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,” Nichols writes. “Such a calculation is not irrational, especially in the Nuclear Age.”

“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,” Nichols continues. Its rationale “is complicated now by the sweep and breadth of the Israeli offensive.”

Read more: [https://theatln.tc/f9mwE0V3](https://theatln.tc/f9mwE0V3) 

— Evan McMurry, senior editor, audience and engagement, The Atlantic