Preemptive Strike On Iran

Israel has an obvious right to prevent its obliteration

By —— Bio and Archives--April 6, 2018

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Israel has an obvious right to prevent its obliteration
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Should the U.S. forbid Israel from attacking Iran if it feels the extremist regime in Tehran is about to obliterate it?

Of course not.  We have no right to do so, and such a ban would be flatly unenforceable.

Israel’s trigger finger has good reason to be itchy.  The Israelis always doubted that Obama’s deal with the mullahs would prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear breakout state, and now even that dicey deal is on the ropes.


The Trump Administration has delivered a “fix or nix” ultimatum to our European partners.  If they don’t work with us to close loopholes that leave Tehran a potential nuclear menace, Trump will pull out of the deal. And if they do close the loopholes, Tehran will likely walk.  Either way, the threat of a nuclear Iran remains.

And Iran has done more to put the Israelis on edge.  Iran has been “weaponizing” its presence in Syria, using surrogates to press the Israelis on every front. 

So what happens if Israel decides to make a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?  There is no telling how violent the region might get and how far it might spread.  Still, the notion of the U.S. flashing the red card to the Jewish democracy makes no sense.

For starters, Israel is anything but an irresponsible actor.  The Israelis have monitored the increasing danger of nuclear attacks for decades.

Twice they have undertaken preventive strikes—once, against a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007, and once again against Iraq’s .nuclear program in 1981.  Israel doesn’t need a lesson from the U.S. in how to evaluate risks to its national survival.

Further, no nation has the right to constrain Israel’s inherent right of self-defense.  While a preventive attack on adversary is not considered an act of just war, a preemptive strike against an enemy, if a nation feels directly threatened, is certainly justifiable.

In addition, an unconstrained Israel is an added deterrent against Iranian aggression.  Today, the regime in Tehran regards the U.S. as a faraway power that may or may not step in if they press Israel too much.

But Tehran is under no illusion that Israel will be shy or restrained in defending itself.  We should keep things that way.  It greatly lessens the likelihood that Iran will recklessly overstep.

The Israeli deterrent also lessens the pressure on other Arab states—the pressure to get their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves against Tehran.  A strong Israel actually creates an environment that lessens the danger of regional proliferation.


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

James Jay Carafano -- Bio and Archives | Comments

A 25-year Army veteran, James Jay Carafano is vice president of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies for The Heritage Foundation, (Heritage.org), a conservative think-tank on Capitol Hill.  Readers may write him at Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: