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
Ted Cruz Defends AIPAC From ‘Foreign Influence’ Claims, Accuses Tucker Carlson of ‘Antisemitism’
US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaking at a press conference about the United States restricting weapons for Israel, at the US Capitol, Washington, DC. Photo: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) forcefully defended the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in domestic politics, arguing in a newly released interview with well-known far-right provocateur Tucker Carlson that the group does not operate as a “foreign agent” on behalf of the Jewish State.
In a tense interview released on Wednesday, Carlson pressed Cruz on his hawkish stance toward Iran, grilling him repeatedly about basic facts, such as Iran’s population and ethnic breakdown, implying Cruz lacked foundational knowledge despite advocating for imposing maximum pressure on the Islamist regime.
The debate then shifted to US–Israel relations, with Carlson questioning whether Israel’s alleged spying and military actions had US backing, prompting Cruz to defend the alliance while walking back implications of direct American involvement.
The exchange underscores growing fissures within the so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement — the backbone of US President Donald Trump’s domestic political support — between isolationists more aligned with Carlson and voices such as Cruz who advocate a more robust military posture, amid the intensifying Israel–Iran conflict.
During the interview, Carlson directed his focus on Cruz’s connections to the influential pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, questioning whether Cruz was unduly influenced by the organization. Carlson accused him of leaning on AIPAC’s messaging and suggested that the group wields an inappropriate amount of power over American foreign policy. Cruz then accused Carlson of stoking antisemitism with his commentary about AIPAC and Israel.
Sen. Ted Cruz insists AIPAC is not a foreign lobby.
Watch the full episode at https://t.co/kYGlVrKTCX pic.twitter.com/HkAHKFoyOl
— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) June 18, 2025
“Are AIPAC’s goals shaped by the goals of the Israeli government?” Carlson asked the senator. “If you say no, I think we both know that’s not true.”
“Does Israel direct AIPAC? No, they’re not lobbying on behalf of them. Do they care about them? Yes,” Cruz responded.
“What you’re now describing, in a very defensive way, I will say, is foreign influence over our politics,” Carlson said.
AIPAC, a US organization composed of Americans that seeks to foster bipartisan support in Congress for the US-Israel alliance, does not receive funding from the Israeli government and operates independently under US law, distinguishing it from foreign agents that register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Cruz responded by forcefully defended the US–Israel relationship and said Carlson’s framing echoed long-standing antisemitic tropes about Jewish control and dual loyalty. Carlson denied the accusation, insisting his criticism was aimed at foreign entanglements and lobbying influence broadly, not solely at Jewish people or Israel.
“By the way, Tucker, it’s a very weird thing, the obsession with Israel,” Cruz said.
“Oh, I’m an antisemite now?” Carlson scoffed while smiling. “You’re trying to derail my questions by calling me an antisemite.”
“You’re asking, why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?” Cruz stated. “If you’re not an anti-Semite, give me another reason why the obsession is Israel.”
Finally, someone with real power calls out Tucker Carlson straight to his face over his thinly veiled antisemitism. Kudos, @tedcruz pic.twitter.com/b4VDeioDNO
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) June 18, 2025
Carlson has been a fierce critic of the Israel-Iran war, arguing that the US should not lend the Jewish state any support in its efforts to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. He has framed the conflict as a reckless proxy war, warning that the Israeli military actions could drag the US into a broader regional conflict in the Middle East.
Carlson has faced multiple controversies involving accusations of antisemitism, tied to both his rhetoric and recurring themes on his shows. In 2021, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) publicly called for Fox News to fire Carlson after he promoted the “Great Replacement” theory — which posits that Jewish people are systemically importing masses of minorities into Western countries to erase white people.
Since leaving Fox News, Carlson’s critical stance toward Israel and organizations like AIPAC has intensified. In interviews and monologues, he has regularly questioned whether US foreign policy is being overly influenced by Israeli interests. Moreover, he has established himself as a fierce critic of Israel’s war in Gaza against Hamas, falsely suggesting that Israel indiscriminately targets Palestinian civilians and conducts airstrikes against Christian churches in Gaza. He has also called on other Christians to adopt an adversarial posture against Israel, accusing the Jewish state of oppressing believers of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, critics point out that Carlson has remained silent on widespread oppression of Christians in Muslim countries, including ones struggling with Islamist extremists such as Nigeria.
The post Ted Cruz Defends AIPAC From ‘Foreign Influence’ Claims, Accuses Tucker Carlson of ‘Antisemitism’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Antisemitic Assaults, Threats Continue Across US With Spate of Incidents
A friend organized a vigil for Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, both Israeli embassy workers who were murdered by an anti-Israel activist, in Washington, DC on May 22, 2025. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
The American Jewish community continues to be battered by antisemitic hate incidents across the US, forcing law enforcement to stay hot on the trails of those who perpetrate them amid a wave of recent outrages.
In the Highland Park suburb of Chicago, an antisemitic letter threatening violence was mailed to a resident’s home. So severe were its contents that the FBI and the Illinois Terrorism and Intelligence Center were called to the scene to establish that there was no imminent danger, according to local news outlets. Later, the local government shuttered all religious institutions as a precautionary measure.
“Even in Highland Park, where we strive to lead with compassion and inclusion, hate can still find its way to our doorstep,” Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said in a statement addressing the incident. “We are living through a time when antisemitism is rising — not only across the world, but here at home. That reality is painful and for many in our community, it is personal. We understand the fear, the hurt, and the anger that such acts provoke. We also understand the pride and strength that come from standing firm in who we are, and in what we believe.”
She added, “Jewish families have been part of the story and the fabric of Highland Park for generations. Their contributions to our civic, cultural, and spiritual life are deep and enduring. That legacy will not be erased or overshadowed by hate.”
In New York City, where antisemitic hate crimes have been increasing year over year and leading the nation in the statistical category, an elderly man struck a Jewish woman with his cane after shouting “Stupid b—tch. Go back to your country” — as reported by the New York Post. He became even more animated after the helpless woman, who was alone on a subway platform, began recording the encounter with her smartphone. The New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) Crimestoppers division has asked the public to come forward if they recognize the man, whose visage was captured in crystal clear screenshots pulled from footage of the attack.
In Garret Park, Maryland, a middle-aged man, Clift A. Seferlis, was recently arrested by federal authorities for sending a series of threatening messages to Jewish organizations in Philadelphia. Seferlis appears to have been motivated by anti-Zionism, as he referenced the war in Gaza in his communications.
“The Victim Jewish Institution 1 received numerous additional messages since April 1, 2024, which contained a threat to physically destroy the institution,” the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said in a statement. “Prior to the receipt of the May 7, 2025, mailing, Victim Jewish Institution 1 and its employees had received very similar-looking letters, believed to have been sent by Seferlis, which referenced Victim Jewish Institution 1’s ‘many big open windows,’ ‘Kristallnacht,’ ‘anger and rage,’ and a future need to ‘rebuild’ the institution following its destruction.”
Another antisemitic incident motivated by anti-Zionism occurred in San Francisco, where an assailant identified by law enforcement as Juan Diaz-Rivas and others allegedly beat up a Jewish victim in the middle of the night. Diaz-Rivas and his friends approached the victim while shouting “F—ck the Jews, Free Palestine,” according to local prosecutors.
“The group then came after them, and one of them punched the victim, who fell to the ground, hit his head and lost consciousness,” the district attorney’s office said in a statement. “Allegedly, Mr. Diaz-Rivas and others in the group continued to punch and kick the victim while he was down. A worker at a nearby business heard the altercation and antisemitic language and attempted to intervene. While trying to help the victim, he was kicked and punched.”
Violence targeting American Jews has increased in recent months.
Earlier this month, an assailant firebombed a pro-Israel rally with Molotov cocktails and a “makeshift” flamethrower in Boulder, Colorado, injuring 15 people ranging in age from 25 to 88 in what US authorities called a targeted terrorist attack. Egyptian national Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, was charged with attempted murder and a slate of other crimes that could land him in jail for more than 600 years if convicted. Prosecutors say he yelled “Free Palestine” during the attack. The suspect also told investigators that he wanted to “kill all Zionist people,” according to court documents.
That incident came less than two weeks after a gunman murdered two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC, while they were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum hosted by the American Jewish Committee. The suspect charged for the double murder, 31-year-old Elias Rodriguez from Chicago, also yelled “Free Palestine” while being arrested by police after the shooting, according to video of the incident. The FBI affidavit supported the criminal charges against Rodriguez stated that he told law enforcement he “did it for Gaza.”
According to chilling data released by the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) latest Audit of Antisemitic Incidents in April, antisemitism in the US is surging to break “all previous annual records.”
In 2024 alone, the ADL recorded 9,354 antisemitic incidents last year — an average of 25.6 a day — across the US, an eruption of hatred not recorded in the nearly thirty years since the organization began tracking such data in 1979. Incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault all increased by double digits, and for the first time ever a majority of outrages — 58 percent — were related to the existence of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state.
The Algemeiner parsed the ADL’’ data, finding dramatic rises in incidents on college campuses, which saw the largest growth in 2024. The 1,694 incidents tallied by the ADL amounted to an 84 percent increase over the previous year. Additionally, antisemites were emboldened to commit more offenses in public in 2024 than they did in 2023, perpetrating 19 percent more attacks on Jewish people, pro-Israel demonstrators, and businesses perceived as being Jewish-owned or affiliated with Jews.
“This horrifying level of antisemitism should never be accepted and yet, as our data shows, it has become a persistent and grim reality for American Jewish communities,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “Jewish Americans continue to be harassed, assaulted, and targeted for who they are on a daily basis and everywhere they go. But let’s be clear: we will remain proud of our Jewish culture, religion, and identities, and we will not be intimidated by bigots.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Antisemitic Assaults, Threats Continue Across US With Spate of Incidents first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israeli Foreign Minister Slams Turkey’s Erdogan for Defending Iran, Comparing Netanyahu to Hitler
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq, April 22, 2024. Photo: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar condemned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday for once again comparing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler and accusing Israel of committing “state terrorism” in its campaign against Iran.
“The sultan, in his own eyes, in yet another inflammatory speech, continues to incite against Israel and against the Israeli prime minister,” Sa’ar wrote in a post on X.
“Erdogan, who has set a record in suppressing the freedoms and rights of his citizens, as well as his country’s opposition, dares to preach to others,” the top Israeli diplomat continued.
The Sultan in his own eyes, in yet another inflammatory speech, continues to incite against Israel and against the Israeli Prime Minister.
Erdogan, who has set a record in suppressing the freedoms and rights of his citizens, as well as his country’s opposition, dares to preach…— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) June 18, 2025
Turkey has been one of the most outspoken critics of Israel on the international stage, even going so far as to threaten an invasion of the Jewish state and calling on the United Nations to use force if Jerusalem fails to halt its military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
“It is particularly ironic that someone who does not hide his imperialist ambitions, someone who invaded northern Syria and illegally holds northern Cyprus, claims to speak in the name of morality and international law,” Sa’ar wrote in his post on X. “A little self-awareness could be helpful.”
During an address to lawmakers from his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in parliament, Erdogan said Israel’s military campaign against Iran was illegal and “crazed.”
“Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has long left Hitler behind in terms of genocide,” the Turkish leader said. “It is a very natural, legitimate, and legal right for Iran to defend itself against Israel’s thuggery and state terrorism.”
“We are closely monitoring Israel’s terrorist attacks on Iran,” Erdogan continued.
Last week, Israel launched a broad preemptive attack on Iran — dubbed “Operation Rising Lion” — targeting military installations and nuclear sites across the country in what officials described as an effort to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat.
The ongoing Israeli strikes killed several of Iran’s top military commanders and nuclear scientists and dealt a major blow to the country’s retaliatory capabilities, destroying not only much of its ballistic missile stockpiles but also crippling its launch platforms.
Israel had previously declared it would never allow the Islamist regime to acquire nuclear weapons, as the country views Iran’s nuclear program — which Tehran insists is solely for civilian purposes — as an existential threat.
Iranian leaders have regularly declared their intention of destroying Israel and have for decades supplied internationally designated terrorist groups, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, with weapons and funding to attack the Jewish state.
Erdogan has frequently defended Hamas terrorists as “resistance fighters” against what he describes as Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, with Turkey long serving as one of the group’s top international backers.
As part of his long history of anti-Israel rhetoric, Erdogan has falsely accused the Jewish state of running “Nazi” concentration camps and compared Netanyahu to Hitler multiple times before.
In March, he threatened to “send Netanyahu to Allah to take care of him, make him miserable, and curse him.”
The Turkish leader has also said that Netanyahu was a “butcher” who would be tried as a “war criminal” over Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza.
He has also called Israel a “terror state” and expressed solidarity with Iran after it attacked the Jewish state with a barrage of ballistic missiles last year.
The post Israeli Foreign Minister Slams Turkey’s Erdogan for Defending Iran, Comparing Netanyahu to Hitler first appeared on Algemeiner.com.