Connect with us

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.

Post Views: 1,004
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Mounting Evidence Reveals Al Jazeera ‘Journalist’ Anas Al-Sharif’s Extensive Hamas Ties

Journalists and media workers protest after Al-Jazeera personnel killed in Gaza, in Barcelona, Spain, Aug. 13, 2025. Photo: Marc Asensio/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect

Evidence has emerged that Anas al-Sharif, one of Al Jazeera Arabic’s most prominent correspondents in Gaza, may have operated as a political operative for Hamas prior to and during the Palestinian terrorist group’s ongoing war with Israel.

Records and public footage indicate al-Sharif worked on a Hamas-linked media team before joining Al Jazeera, maintained ties with senior Hamas leadership, and was singled out by anti-Hamas protesters in March 2025 as part of the group’s ruling establishment.

The Israel Defense Forces claimed that al-Sharif, who was killed on Aug. 10 along with four colleagues in an Israeli airstrike near Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital, was “the head of a Hamas terrorist cell and advanced rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and IDF troops.” IDF international spokesman Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani added on X that Israel obtained intelligence showing al-Sharif was “an active Hamas military wing operative at the time of his elimination” and even received a salary from the terrorist group.

The IDF released photographs it said showed him with Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Khalil al-Hayya, and others, as well as a guest at Hamas gatherings, including some before his current rise to prominence since 2023.

The BBC noted that al-Sharif had worked directly on a Hamas-affiliated media team before the war. This background helped position him to become one of Al Jazeera’s most recognizable Gaza correspondents, ultimately earning him the moniker “The Voice of Gaza” on the network.

According to recently surfaced court documents, al-Sharif allegedly praised Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, the day the terrorist group invaded southern Israel, killed 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages while perpetrating widespread sexual violence.

“Nine hours and the heroes [of Hamas’s Qassam Brigades and other fighters] are still roaming through the houses [of Israelis] killing and capturing,” he allegedly said in a pro-Hamas Telegram group. “God, God, how great they are!” The post has been widely circulated in pro-Israel media, although The Algemeiner could not independently confirm their authenticity.

During anti-Hamas protests in March 2025, video from northern Gaza showed demonstrators calling on al-Sharif by name while they were denouncing Hamas leaders. Protesters outside the al-Shifa hospital also criticized al-Sharif and Al Jazeera for what they described as a refusal to cover the outbreak of grassroots demonstrations across the enclave, with slogans including “Hamas, out!” and “Hey, hey, Hamas are terrorists.” As a major protest commenced outside, al-Sharif and his team remained inside the hospital, refusing to give the demonstrations airtime — a decision critics said aligned with Al Jazeera’s narrative that Hamas retained popular support and legitimacy.

Al Jazeera correspondents have previously received privileged access to Hamas military infrastructure. In one case, correspondent Mustafa Ashour was granted an exclusive tour of Hamas’s tunnels alongside military commanders — access denied to other media.

Other Gaza-based reporters, including Hussam Shabat, have been killed by Israeli strikes that the IDF says targeted militants with dual media roles.

Open-source social media accounts have circulated claims from a Gaza Telegram channel allegedly affiliated with the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades urging residents not to mourn al-Sharif, alleging he had provided internal security with information on anti-Hamas dissidents for arrest or elimination. While no corroborating evidence has yet been made public, the practice has precedent: In March 2020, journalist Hind Khoudary publicly doxxed peace activist Rami Aman to Hamas officials after he participated in a Zoom call with Israelis. A man was later arrested and tortured by Hamas internal security. Khoudary has gone on to work for Al Jazeera English since the start of the war.

In one of his last statements, al-Sharif appeared to criticize Hamas negotiators, saying they bore partial responsibility for the worsening situation in northern Gaza.

International outlets including the BBC, CNN, and Sky News condemned the killing as part of what they described as Israel’s pattern of targeting journalists. Israel maintains that al-Sharif was a legitimate military target due to his alleged operational role in Hamas.

Post Views: 27
Continue Reading

RSS

Belgian Politician Sparks Outrage by Refusing Rosh Hashanah Greeting Amid Rising Antisemitism

Matthias Diependaele, Minister‑President of Flanders, has faced backlash after declining to send a Rosh Hashanah message to Belgium’s Jewish community. Photo: Screenshot

A senior Belgian politician has sparked outrage by refusing to send a Jewish New Year message, amid a growing climate of hostility toward Jews and Israelis in Europe, where antisemitic attacks continue to rise.

Earlier this week, Matthias Diependaele, Minister‑President of Flanders — the Dutch-speaking region in northern Belgium — was asked by the Belgian Jewish newspaper The Centrale to provide a Rosh Hashanah message.

However, the newspaper received a message from Diependaele’s office declining the request.

“After internal deliberation, we regret to inform you that, given the current situation and sensitivities concerning the tensions in the Middle East, we cannot follow up on your request,” the statement read.

“Anything that bears even the slightest connection to this conflict is being closely monitored and examined under a magnifying glass. For that reason, we do not deem it opportune to go into this any further,” it continued.

According to the Jewish newspaper, requesting a Rosh Hashanah greeting from Belgium’s leaders for the country’s Jewish citizens has been a long-standing tradition.

“This year, even that became radioactive,” The Centrale wrote.

Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, will take place in late September this year.

Shortly after the newspaper published Diependaele’s response, which drew widespread outrage from Belgium’s Jewish community and leaders, the politician rejected claims of antisemitism and attempted to revise his earlier statement.

“My refusal is purely based on the principle that, for more than 15 years in my role as a representative of the people, I have not supported religious activities,” Diependaele wrote in a new letter sent to The Centrale.

“I have also never accepted invitations for the Eid. I have also never taken part in a Te Deum for Catholics,” the Belgian politician continued. “By this I am in no way passing judgment on any religion or on the people who practice it. It is, however, my conviction that no religion — including my own — has any role to play in the exercise of my mandate.”

However, the paper rejected Diependaele’s new letter, arguing that his shift from “too sensitive right now” to a “timeless principle” was an attempt to mask his initial fear of public backlash.

The World Jewish Congress sharply criticized Diependaele’s actions, denouncing it as a clear act of antisemitism.

“Holding Jews in the Diaspora collectively accountable for the actions of Israel – is antisemitic. To be a political leader, and to refuse to acknowledge the traditions and culture of your country’s Jewish community – because of Israel – is antisemitic,” the organization said in a statement.

“What transpired is quite clear: A political leader declined to acknowledge their Jewish citizens because of Israel and the perceived public backlash about engaging with Jews,” it continued.

Post Views: 32
Continue Reading

RSS

Israeli Hostage Families Sue ICC Prosecutor, Accuse Him of Aiding Hamas

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands, Feb. 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

Families of three hostages still being held in Gaza by Hamas have filed a lawsuit against Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), accusing him of aiding the Palestinian terror group and obstructing justice.

On Wednesday, Israeli NGO Shurat HaDin, led by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, announced a lawsuit worth NIS 20 million (about $5.9 million) on behalf of the families of Avinatan Or, Eitan Mor, and Omri Miran.

“The International Criminal Court has become a branch of Hamas. Through [Khan’s] direct actions, he gave an enormous tailwind to the terrorist murderers,” Darshan-Leitner, founder and president of Shurat HaDin, said in a statement.

The lawsuit accuses Khan of turning the ICC into “a branch office” of Hamas, the terrorist group that has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades, and calls for him to be investigated for allegedly acting against Israel to divert attention from sexual misconduct claims against him.

It also accuses Khan of undermining Israel, deceiving the plaintiffs, and providing support to terrorist organizations.

“The blood libels the defendant wove against the State of Israel and its leaders, by creating a false moral equivalence between the State of Israel – the victim – and the terrorists who hold the hostages and abuse them daily, granted legitimacy to the terrorists to continue extorting Israel while holding and abusing the hostages,” the lawsuit says about Khan.

According to the lawsuit, Khan failed for eight months to issue arrest warrants for senior Hamas leaders behind the Oct. 7, 2023, onslaught on Israel, including Mohammed Deif, Yahya Sinwar, and Ismail Haniyeh.

Even then, he opted not to pursue other figures from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, an allied terrorist group in Gaza, directly responsible for taking hostages.

In this way, the lawsuit argues that Khan drew a false moral equivalence between a democratic state defending itself and terrorist groups killing civilians, while delaying action, deflecting responsibility, and providing political cover to Hamas.

“We will not allow international courts to turn into sanctuaries for terror. We will not let them rewrite history. We will not stay silent while justice is hijacked,” the Israeli NGO said in a post on X.

In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict.

Khan initially made his surprise demand for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on the same day in May that he suddenly canceled a long-planned visit to both Gaza and Israel to collect evidence of alleged war crimes. The last-second cancellation reportedly infuriated US and British leaders, as the trip would have offered Israeli leaders a first opportunity to present their position and outline any action they were taking to respond to the allegations.

However, the ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the enclave during the war.

Israel also says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, despite Hamas’s widely acknowledged 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.

US and Israeli officials have issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, which launched the ongoing war in Gaza with its invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Post Views: 29
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News