US Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a striking new justification for Washington\u2019s assault on Iran. The United States, he argued, struck first only after learning that Israel was poised to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran\u2019s nuclear sites and that Tehran would then retaliate against American forces in the region. \u201cThere absolutely was an imminent threat,\u201d Mr Rubio said, adding that Iran had missiles ready to \u201cimmediately come after us\u201d if it were hit by Israel. It is impossible for anyone with even the faintest notion of polemology justify this logic as self-defence. What it truly represents is an anticipatory war-by-proxy. Nothing more. Nothing else. The question the administration has not credibly answered is the most basic one. If the US had intelligence that an ally was about to trigger a regional conflagration, why was the first resort not to prevent it\u2013politically, diplomatically, materially\u2013rather than to widen it?
\nScepticism has been sharp and notably bipartisan. Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said launching large-scale operations \u201cparticularly in the absence of an imminent threat to the US\u201d raised serious legal and constitutional concerns, and insisted Congress must be fully briefed. Others have raised an equally troubling precedent: if a threat to an ally can be reframed as an \u201cimminent\u201d threat to America, what becomes of the already-fragile constraints on the use of force?
\nThe domestic political fallout suggests the administration is also struggling to carry public opinion. A Reuters\/Ipsos poll found only 27 per cent of US adults approved of the strikes. That is not a mandate for a prolonged conflict, and it is not difficult to understand why. After two decades of costly interventions, Americans are weary of open-ended wars and wary of the economic aftershocks that Middle Eastern instability invariably produces.
\nThere is also the question of international legality. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful in self-defence against an armed attack, or when authorised by the Security Council. \u201cPre-emptive\u201d action has long been contested even under the most charitable reading, and preventive war is widely viewed as unlawful. Pakistan knows, painfully, what happens when wars are entered on inflated premises and vague end-states. The post-9\/11 War on Terror consumed Pakistani lives and social cohesion for years on end. As big powersredraw lines, mid-tier states that do not define their interests clearly are pushed into reactive corners. Pakistan cannot afford that.
\nIt must remain anchored to principles that protect its interests: territorial sovereignty, non-intervention, restraint in the use of force, and peaceful settlement of disputes. Iran\u2019s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, condemning what he called \u201ca war of choice on behalf of Israel,\u201d dismissed the notion of an Iranian \u201cthreat.\u201d The phrase may be politically charged, but it captures a deeper unease. Wars justified through elastic definitions of imminence and launched in anticipation rather than response have a habit of expanding beyond their intentions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a striking new justification for Washington\u2019s assault on Iran. The United States, he argued, struck first only after learning that Israel was poised to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran\u2019s nuclear sites and that Tehran would then retaliate against American forces in the region. \u201cThere absolutely was an […]<\/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-534882","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-editorial"},"yoast_head":"\n