There is a distinction in just war theory that most people instinctively understand but rarely articulate precisely: the difference between pre-emptive and preventive war. It is the difference between striking an enemy who is about to attack you and striking an enemy who might attack you someday. The first can be justified. The second cannot. It is, morally and legally, aggression.
\nIn his landmark work Just and Unjust Wars (1977), moral philosopher Michael Walzer argues that we can, and must, ask whether any given war is just. His argument rests on two pillars. The first is jus ad bellum: the justice of going to war at all. The second is jus in bello: justice in how the war is fought. They are independent of each other. A just cause can be prosecuted unjustly, and an unjust war can be fought with restraint.
\nOn the question of when war is justified, the answer is unambiguous. War is only legitimate in response to aggression, actual or imminently threatened. Just war theory draws a careful, important line between preventive war and pre-emptive war. A pre-emptive strike is morally permissible when the threat is imminent: when the enemy has already decided to strike, is mobilising, and the moment is upon you.
\nThe paradigm case is Israel in June 1967, where Egyptian forces massed on the border with declared intent to destroy. That is legitimate pre-emption. (A side but related note: Walzer, whose ideas I\u2019m drawing on, is himself a Zionist, which makes its implications for today all the more interesting.)
\nBut preventive war, which involves striking a potential future threat before it has materialised, is a fundamentally different thing. Preventive war rests on speculative fears about what an adversary might do, not on imminent hostile action. It violates the rights of the attacked state. It is, in the framework of international law, straightforwardly an act of aggression. And aggression is the crime from which all other war crimes flow.
\nNow apply this to the United States and Israel joint operations (Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion) on Iran targeting Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and other cities. Trump announced \u201cmajor combat operations\u201d with the stated goal of eliminating Iran\u2019s nuclear programme and, more candidly, toppling its government entirely. His words to the Iranian people: \u201cThe hour of your freedom is at hand.\u201d
\nThe justification offered was prevention: Iran\u2019s supposed nuclear threat. But here is the problem. The IAEA found no evidence Iran had resumed uranium enrichment.
\nThe Defence Intelligence Agency estimated Iran was at least a decade away from intercontinental missile capability.
\nThe Department of Defence itself assessed that last year\u2019s strikes had set the Iranian nuclear programme back by two years. American and European intelligence officials disputed Trump\u2019s claims. In short: the threat was not imminent. It was speculative, politically inflated, and by the administration\u2019s own prior statements, largely already addressed by previous strikes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There is a distinction in just war theory that most people instinctively understand but rarely articulate precisely: the difference between pre-emptive and preventive war. It is the difference between striking an enemy who is about to attack you and striking an enemy who might attack you someday. The first can be justified. The second cannot. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-534491","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-editorial"},"yoast_head":"\n