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: 989
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

French Foreign Minister Says Recognizing Palestinian State Defies Hamas, Despite Terror Group’s Praise

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot speaks to the media on the day he attends the European Union Foreign Ministers council in Brussels, Belgium, July 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot insisted on Friday that President Emmanuel Macron’s push to recognize a Palestinian state defies Hamas’s interests — even as the terrorist group welcomed the decision.

“Hamas has consistently rejected the two-state solution. By recognizing Palestine, France is rejecting the stance of this terrorist organization and affirming its support for peace over war,” the top French diplomat said in a post on X.

However, Hamas praised France’s latest announcement, calling it “a positive step in the right direction.”

France’s initiative is part of “a political development that reflects growing international conviction in the justice of the Palestinian cause and the failure of the Israeli occupation to distort facts or suppress the will of free nations,” said the Palestinian terrorist group, which has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades.

Hamas also said that such international steps “represent political and moral pressure” on Israel.

On Thursday, Macron announced that France will recognize a Palestinian state and issue a formal statement at the United Nations General Assembly in September as part of its “commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

“The urgent priority today is to end the war in Gaza and to bring relief to the civilian population,” the French leader said in a post on X.

Macron called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages still held by Hamas, and increased humanitarian aid for Gaza.

He also stressed the need to demilitarize the Iran-backed terrorist group, rebuild the war-torn enclave, and create a Palestinian state that recognizes Israel and ensures regional security.

“The French people want peace in the Middle East. It is our responsibility — as French citizens, alongside Israelis, Palestinians, and our European and international partners — to prove that peace is possible,” the French leader wrote.

However, despite Macron’s continued efforts, his controversial diplomatic initiative to recognize a Palestinian state faces widespread public opposition, with nearly 80 percent of French citizens rejecting the move.

A recent survey conducted by the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) on behalf of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) — the main representative body of French Jews — found that 78 percent of respondents opposed a “hasty, immediate, and unconditional recognition of a Palestinian state.”

According to IFOP’s survey, nearly half of French people (47 percent) believe that recognition of a Palestinian state should only be considered after the release of the remaining hostages captured by Hamas during the group’s invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

The survey also revealed deep concerns about the consequences of such a premature recognition, with 51 percent of respondents fearing a resurgence of antisemitism in France and 50 percent believing it could strengthen Hamas’s position in the Middle East.

France’s policy move comes after Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia officially recognized a Palestinian state last year, claiming that such a move would contribute to fostering a two-state solution and promote lasting peace in the region.

On Friday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas praised France’s decision, calling it a “victory for the Palestinian cause.”

“This reflects France’s commitment to supporting the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights to their land and their homeland,” Abbas said.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned France’s announcement, describing it as a “reward for terrorism.”

“Such a move … risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became,” the Israeli leader said in a post on X.

“A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it. Let’s be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel. They seek a state instead of Israel,” he continued.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also denounced the move, calling it “reckless” and saying it “only serves Hamas propaganda.”

The post French Foreign Minister Says Recognizing Palestinian State Defies Hamas, Despite Terror Group’s Praise first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 41
Continue Reading

RSS

Costa Rica Adopts IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, Joining Latin America’s Fight Against Rising Jew-Hatred

Part of an exhibit on the Holocaust supported by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Photo: courtesy of IHRA.

Costa Rica has formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, becoming the sixth country in Latin America to do so as antisemitic rhetoric and anti-Jewish hatred continue to rise across the region.

Local authorities announced the decision following meetings with a delegation from the American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) Arthur and Rochelle Belfer Institute for Latino and Latin American Affairs.

Among the Latin American countries that have already endorsed the IHRA definition are Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, and Uruguay.

An intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries, including the United States and Israel, IHRA adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016.

Since its adoption, the definition has gained widespread support from Jewish organizations and lawmakers around the world, and is now used by hundreds of governmental bodies, including the European Union and the United Nations.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Beyond traditional antisemitic acts associated with the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the definition provides contemporary examples of antisemitism found in public life, media, education, workplaces, and religious settings — including Holocaust denial and modern forms targeting Israel, such as demonizing the Jewish state and denying its right to exist.

Jewish organizations hailed Costa Rica’s recent decision as a significant milestone in the global fight against Jew-hatred, amid a worldwide surge in antisemitism following the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

“We are grateful that Costa Rica has joined the growing number of nations that view the IHRA definition as an essential guidepost to recognize antisemitism in its various forms so it can be properly addressed,” Dina Siegel Vann, director of AJC’s Institute for Latin American Affairs, said in a statement.

“We urge all nations to take this important step to protect their Jewish communities and uphold their Democratic values,” she continued.

Gilbert Meltzer, president of Costa Rica’s Jewish Community, commended the government’s decision to “support morality and combat discrimination.”

“The increase of hate speech and attacks on Jews all over the world, especially after Oct. 7, demands ethical decisions and firm actions as this one,” Meltzer said in a statement.

The European Jewish Congress also praised Costa Rica’s latest move, describing it as “a timely and courageous step” amid a rising climate of hostility against Jews.

“Defining hate is the first step to combating it. A principled move that must inspire others,” the statement read.

The post Costa Rica Adopts IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, Joining Latin America’s Fight Against Rising Jew-Hatred first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 37
Continue Reading

RSS

‘Reckless Decision’: US Officials Blast France for Recognizing Palestinian State

US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron react on the day of a press conference, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Feb. 24, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

US officials were quick to castigate France for its intention to recognize a Palestinian state in September at the United Nations General Assembly, describing the policy as “reckless” and a move that undermines efforts to end the ongoing war in Gaza.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who announced the decision on X, published a letter sent to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas confirming France’s intention to press ahead with Palestinian recognition.

“True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine,” Macron said. “I will make this solemn announcement at the United Nations General Assembly next September.”

France, home to the third largest Jewish community in the world, will become the first major Western country to recognize a Palestinian state, after smaller nations more generally more critical of Israel did so last year.

Washington lambasted France’s announcement.

“The United States strongly rejects Emmanuel Macron’s plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on the X social media platform. “This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th.”

Likewise, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee slammed France for moving to recognize a Palestinian state.

“How clever! If Macron can just ‘declare’ the existence of a state perhaps the UK can ‘declare’ France a British colony!” he said on X. “Macron’s unilateral ‘declaration’ of a ‘Palestinian’ state didn’t say WHERE it would be. I can now exclusively disclose that France will offer the French Riviera & the new nation will be called ‘Franc-en-Stine.’”

Huckabee has long opposed the recognition of a Palestinian state. In June, the ambassador said that he did not think that an independent Palestinian state remains a goal of US foreign policy.

US President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed Macron’s plan, saying it won’t make a difference.

“What he says doesn’t matter,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “He’s a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn’t carry weight.”

Trump added, “”Look, he’s a different kind of a guy. He’s okay. He’s a team player, pretty much. But here’s the good news: What he says doesn’t matter. It’s not going to change anything.”

Israeli officials lambasted France’s plan as a “reward for terrorism,” arguing a Palestinian state at this time would become a hub for terrorism and likely a proxy of Iran, which has long backed the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.

“A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it. Let’s be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on X.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned Macron’s “absurd and unserious” decision that Paris will formally recognize a Palestinian state.

“A Palestinian state would be a Hamas state — just as the [Israeli] withdrawal from the Gaza Strip 20 years ago led to Hamas’s takeover there,” he said in a statement posted on X.

“Israel’s attempt to base its security on Palestinian promises to fight terror failed entirely in the Oslo process,” he continued, referring to the 1990s peace initiative between Israel and the Palestinians that sought a two-state solution. “Israel will no longer gamble with its security and its future.”

Israel maintains that Palestinian statehood should only come as the result of a negotiated peace agreement that ensures Israel’s security and recognition as a Jewish state.

The French announcement comes amid ongoing hostilities in Gaza, where Israeli military operations continue following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.

Macron defended the decision to recognize a Palestinian state in a statement, saying that the proclamation underscores that France is “true to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

“We must finally build the State of Palestine, ensure its viability and enable it, by accepting its demilitarization and fully recognizing Israel, to contribute to the security of all in the Middle East,” he added.

The post ‘Reckless Decision’: US Officials Blast France for Recognizing Palestinian State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 39
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News