RSS
Israel Has a Legal Option to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons: The Use of Force
FILE PHOTO: Iranian demonstrators attend an anti-Israeli gathering in front of the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran, April 14, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Though Iran describes its drone and missile attack on Israel as “retaliation,” it is actually an act of aggression. If Iran were an already-nuclear enemy state, Israel’s capacity for lawful self-defense would be glaringly limited. But as Iran is still pre-nuclear, the Iranian aggression could prove net-gainful for Israel. In essence, this Iranian crime offers Israel an 11th hour opportunity to prevent enemy nuclearization. In formal legal terms, such opportunity falls under the heading of “anticipatory self-defense.”
To be sure, the tangible human and material costs to Israel of any further escalation could be very high, but fighting against a not-yet-nuclear enemy that initiated the aggression would represent Israel’s best chance to avoid an eventual nuclear war.
Among other derelictions, Tehran’s earlier assurance that its strike against Israel would be limited “to avoid escalations” was disingenuous. After all, during any crisis search for “escalation dominance” by an already-nuclear Israel and a not-yet-nuclear Iran, competitive risk-taking would favor the former.
Under authoritative international law, defensive first strikes or acts of “preemption” could be permissible in existential-threat circumstances. But even if resorts to anticipatory self-defense would be deemed lawful or law-enforcing, they could still prove unreasonably dangerous, strategically misconceived, tangibly ineffectual, and/or irrational. It follows, going forward, that Israel will need to evaluate all anticipatory self-defense options along the two discrete standards of law and strategy.
From the standpoint of international law, preemption could represent a fully permissible option. Though subject to important constraints and conditions, the right of “anticipatory self-defense” is well established. And while a “bolt from the blue” Israeli preemption against Iran could involve assorted difficulties, such difficulties are unlikely to apply in an ongoing conventional war. In this connection, Iran had repeatedly declared its intention to strike Israel as “punishment.”
In law, this declaration, now fulfilled, was an open admission of mens rea or criminal intent.
The right of self-defense by forestalling an attack appears in Hugo Grotius’ Book II of The Law of War and Peace in 1625. Recognizing the need for “present danger” and threatening behavior that is “imminent in a point of time,” Grotius indicates that self defense is to be permitted not only after an attack has been suffered, but also in advance, that is, “where the deed may be anticipated.” Or, as he explains a bit further on in the same chapter, “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill….”
A similar position was taken by Emmerich de Vattel. In Book II of The Law of Nations (1758), Vattel argues: “The safest plan is to prevent evil, where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor. It may even anticipate the other’s design, being careful, however, not to act upon vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run the risk of becoming itself the aggressor.”
Grotius and Vattel draw upon the early Jewish interpreters, although the latter speak more generally of interpersonal relations than about international relations. Additionally, the Torah contains a prominent provision exonerating from guilt a potential victim of robbery with possible violence if, in self defense, he struck down and if necessary even killed the attacker before he committed any crime. (Ex. 22:1).
Even if Iran were not in a condition of active belligerency with the Jewish state, an Israeli preemptive action could still be law-enforcing. Israel, in the fashion of every state under world law, is entitled to existential self-defense. Today, in an age of uniquely destructive weaponry, international law does not require Israel or any other state to expose its citizens to atomic destruction. Especially in circumstances where active hostilities are already underway — that is, during times of conventional warfighting — Israel’s legal right to attack selected Iranian nuclear facilities would be unassailable.
Under current conflict circumstances, an Israeli non-nuclear preemption would represent the best available way to reduce the risks of a regional nuclear war. If Israel waits until the next “ordinary” war with Iran, that recalcitrant foe could conceivably launch nuclear attacks. Even if a then-nuclear Tehran would strike first with conventional weapons, Israel could still have no meaningful tactical choice but to undertake a nuclear retaliation.
The right of anticipatory self defense has its modern origins in the Caroline incident, an event that concerned the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule. Following this event, the serious threat of armed attack has generally been taken to justify a state’s militarily defensive action. In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then-US Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self defense which did not require an actual attack. In it, military response to a threat was judged permissible so long as the danger posed was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”
These are bewildering matters. What should Israeli planners conclude? The answer depends in part upon their view of Iran’s reciprocal judgments concerning Israel’s leaders. Do these judgments suggest a leadership that believes it can gain the upper hand with a nuclear counter-retaliation? Or do they suggest a leadership that believes such counter-retaliation would bring upon Israel variously intolerable levels of adversarial destruction?
All relevant calculations assume rationality. In the absence of calculations that compare the costs and benefits of strategic alternatives, what will likely happen between Israel and Iran would remain a matter of conjecture. The prospect of non-rational judgments in this relationship is always plausible, especially as the influence of Islamist/Jihadist ideology remains strongly determinative among Iranian decision-making elites.
Iran’s attack on Israel is anything but a lawful retaliation.
Under all pertinent international law, Iran’s attack represents an overt act of aggression, but one that now also leaves Jerusalem with a not-to-be ignored opportunity to preemptively destroy selected Iranian military targets. Such a non-nuclear preemption opportunity could express the optimal way to prevent future and irremediably destructive nuclear aggressions from Iran.
While Israel’s active defenses have been remarkably successful against the Iranian missile and drone attacks, more offensive measures will be required. It could never be sufficiently purposeful or law enforcing for Israel to confine its reaction to the current Iranian attacks to passive strategies of interception. Above all other strategic considerations, the Iranian attacks, whether halted or ongoing, offer Israel a life-saving opportunity to avoid later preemptions against an already-nuclear enemy.
“The safety of the People,” observed ancient Roman philosopher Cicero, “is the highest law.” Now, the safety of the People of Israel could best be served by waging a just war against a pre-nuclear Iran. Though such a war might still involve significant human and material costs, it would be substantially less catastrophic than war between two already-nuclear powers. This is the case even if an Iran that had crossed the nuclear threshold was verifiably “less powerful” than a nuclear Israel. In any pertinent nuclear conflict scenario, even a “weaker” Iran could wreak intolerable harms upon Israel.
All things considered, if an ongoing or future war with Iran is inevitable, it would be much safer for Jerusalem to proceed as the sole nuclear combatant. Accordingly, this is not a moment for Israeli strategic thinking to become confused or shortsighted. Calculating that immediate war curtailment is necessarily the best available option would subject Israel to future instances of existential harm. This could include a full-scale nuclear war.
The author is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of twelve major books dealing with international relations, military strategy and world affairs. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland on August 31, 1945, and lectures and publishes widely on issues of terrorism, counter-terrorism, nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres’ latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed. 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post Israel Has a Legal Option to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons: The Use of Force first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Strikes Hamas Leadership in Qatar Amid Gaza War
A damaged building, following an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, according to an Israeli official, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Israel has carried out a strike targeting Hamas leadership in Qatar, marking an expansion of Jerusalem’s efforts to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist group as the war in Gaza continues.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Shin Bet security agency confirmed a “precise strike” in Doha targeting Hamas’s senior leadership, who orchestrated the Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel and directed the Islamist group’s operations for years.
“The IDF and ISA [Israel Security Agency, or Shin Bet] will continue to operate with determination in order to defeat the Hamas terrorist organization responsible for the Oct. 7 massacre,” the two organizations said in a statement.
The IDF and ISA conducted a precise strike targeting the senior leadership of the Hamas terrorist organization.
For years, these members of the Hamas leadership have led the terrorist organization’s operations, are directly responsible for the brutal October 7 massacre, and…
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) September 9, 2025
According to circulating media reports, senior Hamas officials — including leader Khalil al-Hayya — were targeted in the strike in Doha, though their deaths have not been confirmed.
A Hamas spokesperson said the group’s negotiating team was also targeted in the attack.
In its statement, the IDF assured that precautions were taken to limit civilian harm ahead of the strike, “including the use of precise munitions and additional intelligence.”
Qatar’s Interior Ministry said a member of the country’s Internal Security Force was killed and that other security personnel were injured.
Shortly after Israel claimed responsibility for the attack, Qatar denounced the operation, warning that “it will not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior and the ongoing disruption of regional security, nor any act that targets its security and sovereignty.”
“The State of Qatar strongly condemns the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the Political Bureau of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha,” Majed al-Ansari, a Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said in a statement.
“This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms, and poses a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents in Qatar,” he continued.
The State of Qatar strongly condemns the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the Political Bureau of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha. This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms,…
— د. ماجد محمد الأنصاري Dr. Majed Al Ansari (@majedalansari) September 9, 2025
Alongside the United States and other regional powers, Qatar has served as a ceasefire mediator during the nearly two-year Gaza conflict, facilitating indirect negotiations between the Jewish state and Hamas.
However, Doha has also backed the Palestinian terrorist group for years, providing Hamas with money and diplomatic support while hosting and sheltering its top leadership.
According to media reports, Washington, which officially classifies Qatar as a “major non-NATO ally,” knew about the strike beforehand and gave it the green light, though the US did not participate in carrying it out.
The US Embassy in Doha issued a shelter-in-place order for all American citizens.
Earlier this year, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism Policy released a report exposing the extent of Qatar’s far-reaching financial entanglements within American institutions, shedding light on what experts described as a coordinated effort to influence US policy making and public opinion in Doha’s favor. The findings showed that Qatar has attempted to expand its soft power in the US by spending $33.4 billion on business and real estate projects, over $6 billion on universities, and $72 million on American lobbyists since 2012.
In a joint statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed they had ordered security agencies to target Hamas leadership following attacks in Jerusalem and Gaza.
They said the strike targeted Hamas in retaliation for the Oct. 7 atrocities, Monday’s terrorist attack in Jerusalem, which left six Israelis dead and several more injured, and a separate attack on an Israeli tank in northern Gaza that killed four soldiers
Yesterday, after the murderous attacks in Jerusalem and Gaza, Prime Minister Netanyahu directed all security elements to prepare for the possibility of striking the Hamas leadership. The Defense Minister fully supported this initiative.https://t.co/dQDySUqQJv
— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) September 9, 2025
This latest strike came just two days after the Trump administration unveiled its newest proposals for a ceasefire to end the war in Gaza.
On Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said that Israel accepted the new deal, which calls for the release of all remaining hostages and the disarmament of Hamas.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump gave Hamas what he called a “last warning” to agree to this latest proposal.
The terrorist group said it was ready to negotiate the release of all remaining Israeli hostages still held in the war-torn enclave in exchange for “a clear declaration to end the war, a full withdrawal from Gaza, and the formation of a committee of Palestinian independents to manage Gaza.”
However, senior Hamas official Bassem Naim said on Monday that the group will not accept disarmament — one of Israel’s core demands for ending the war, thus seemingly rejecting Trump’s ceasefire plan for Gaza.
RSS
‘No Basis in Truth’: Authorities Reject Claim by Gaza-Bound Flotilla That Boat Struck by Drone at Tunisian Port
A Global Sumud flotilla vessel floats in the waters as Tunisian Maritime National Guard boats conduct an inspection in Sidi Bou Said, Tunisia, Sept. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jihed Abidellaoui
Tunisian authorities have rejected as false a claim by the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) for Gaza that one of its main boats was struck on Tuesday by a drone at a port in Tunisia.
Tunisia’s interior ministry said that reports of a drone hitting a boat at its Sidi Bou Said port “have no basis in truth,” and that a fire broke out on the vessel itself. The flotilla had said that all six passengers and crew were safe despite the alleged strike.
The Portuguese-flagged boat, carrying the flotilla‘s steering committee, sustained fire damage to its main deck and below-deck storage, the GSF said in a statement.
In tandem with the denial from Tunisian authorities, video circulated on social media apparently showing that the fire was caused by a crew member misfiring a flare that landed back on the boat, not by a drone.
BREAKING: New footage from Greta’s boat shows a crew member misfiring a flare, which lands back on the boat.
These people lie for sport. There was never any drone. pic.twitter.com/GSSSvjy23I
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) September 9, 2025
The flotilla is an international initiative seeking to break Israel’s naval blockade and deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza using civilian boats supported by delegations from 44 countries, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and Portuguese left-wing politician Mariana Mortagua.
A video posted by the GSF on X purportedly showed the moment “the Family Boat was struck from above,” capturing a luminous flying object hitting the vessel with smoke rising soon after.
After the incident, dozens of people gathered outside the Sidi Bou Said port, where the flotilla‘s boats were located at the time, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Free Palestine,” a Reuters witness said.
Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, saying it aims to stop weapons from reaching the internationally desgnated terrorist group.
The blockade has remained in place through the current war, which began when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages.
In June, Israeli naval forces boarded and seized a British-flagged yacht carrying Thunberg, among others. Israel dismissed the aid ship as a propaganda stunt in support of Hamas.
The GSF also said an investigation into the drone attack was underway and its results would be released once available.
“Acts of aggression aimed at intimidating and derailing our mission will not deter us. Our peaceful mission to break the siege on Gaza and stand in solidarity with its people continues with determination and resolve,” the GSF said.
The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, who was at the port, told Reuters: “We do not know who carried out the attack, but we would not be surprised if it was Israel. If confirmed, it is an attack against Tunisian sovereignty.”
Albanese has been widely accused by critics of using her position to denigrate Israel and justify Hamas’s use of terrorism against Israelis.
There was no immediate comment from the Israeli side.
RSS
Britain Concludes Israel Not Committing Genocide in Gaza
A picture released by the Israeli Army says to show Israeli soldiers conducting operations in a location given as Tel Al-Sultan area, Rafah Governorate, Gaza, in this handout image released April 2, 2025. Photo: Israeli Army/Handout via REUTERS
Britain has concluded that Israel is not committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza but criticized “utterly appalling” civilian suffering there, in a government letter, ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Israeli president.
Israel has been accused of perpetrating genocide in Gaza despite its military campaign there targeting the ruling terrorist group Hamas, which openly seeks the Jewish state’s destruction and started the current war with its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israeli communities.
Jerusalem rejects the accusation, citing its right to self-defense following the Oct. 7 attack, in which Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists killed 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages.
Israel also says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
Starmer is due to meet Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a leader who has a largely ceremonial role, at Downing Street on Wednesday, his spokesperson said.
The Gaza war has strained Britain-Israel relations. The Israeli government is enraged by Britain‘s plan to recognize a Palestinian state and block Israeli officials from attending its biggest defense trade show this week.
Starmer is facing criticism from some of his Labour lawmakers for agreeing to meet Herzog.
Asked whether the government’s legal duty to prevent genocide had been triggered, David Lammy, Britain‘s foreign minister until Friday, wrote in a Sept. 1 letter to a parliamentary committee that the government had carefully considered the risk of genocide.
“As per the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide occurs only where there is specific ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,’” he said in the letter seen by Reuters.
“The government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.”
Lammy was foreign secretary from mid-2024 until Friday when he was replaced by Yvette Cooper and appointed deputy prime minister as part of a reshuffle.
His letter added: “The high civilian casualties, including women and children, and the extensive destruction in Gaza, are utterly appalling. Israel must do much more to prevent and alleviate the suffering that this conflict is causing.”
The long-held British government position has been that genocide should be determined by courts.