by Alex Fiedler
Recent statements by senior US and Israeli officials regarding Iranian intransigence with regard to international calls for negotiation has raised once again the issue of preemptive military action. The international community's most recent analogy vis-à-vis preemption is president George W. Bush's invasion of
For this reason, preemption has acquired a pejorative connotation in recent years, and the possibility of using preemptive action against
It is in fact a misnomer to refer to an attack against
FIRSTLY, A preemptive military strike is one in which Side A attacks Side B when Side A has full assurance that an attack by Side B is imminent.
What most people actually mean when they discuss policy options vis-à-vis
So would a strike against
According to this logic, a strike against
Not only is this support well documented, the Iranian regime and its proxies boast of this support. Iranian weapons have killed Israelis (read Hamastan and Hizbullah-stan). Iranian weapons have killed Americans (read
ALL THESE examples of Iranian hostilities are found in open sources. A strike against
Chattering classes and media invoke the fact that the
An international inspection following a strike against
For an honest policy debate on
Alex Fiedler holds an MA in government from the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the IDC-Herzliya. He was formerly a policy analyst at the Program in Applied Decision Analysis at the Lauder School of Government.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.