Louis Rene Beres
JNS, Aug. 12, 2024
“What should Israeli strategic planners conclude? In part, at least, the answer depends on their view of Iran’s reciprocal judgments of Israel’s leaders.”
During its impending war with Iran, Israel’s overriding objective should be to keep that jihadist enemy non-nuclear. The best way to meet this objective will be by systematically controlling conflict escalations (“escalation dominance”). In the final analysis, this task will require Israel to shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.”
If Iran were an already nuclear enemy state, Israel’s demonstrated capacity for effective self-defense would be severely limited. However, because Iran is still pre-nuclear, the expected Iranian aggression could be a net gain for Israel. Ironically, this foreseeable Iran-created war could offer Israel an eleventh-hour opportunity to prevent enemy nuclearization and avoid a vastly more destructive war. In legal terms, this signifies an opportunity for “anticipatory self-defence.”
“The safety of the people,” declares Roman philosopher Cicero, “is always the highest law.” In the past several months, Tehran has been taunting Israel as if the Jewish state was somehow the weaker adversary. But in any intra-war search for “escalation dominance” by an already-nuclear Israel and a not-yet-nuclear Iran, competitive risk-taking would strongly favor Israel.
From the standpoint of international law, preemption could represent a fully permissible strategic option. Though a “bolt from the blue” Israeli preemption against Iran would involve multiple and intersecting difficulties, these difficulties are unlikely to apply during an already ongoing conventional war. Ritualistically, Iran declares its intention to strike Israel as “punishment.” In law, however, this barbarous declaration is an open admission of mens rea or “criminal intent.” …Source