If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first
[ by Charles Cameron — selected quotes: Iranian, Israeli, US, UN Charter and Quranic, New Testament and Talmudic views on preemptive war ]
.
The Iranians are threatening it:
As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened…
Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammed Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said on Tuesday: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”
The Israelis appear to be discussing it:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is looking for cabinet support to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, according to a report in the Haaretz newspaper.
The story sources a high-ranking Israeli official who said that Netanyahu is hoping to build a consensus for striking the Iranian nuclear facilities believed to be part of a programme for building an Iranian nuclear warhead.
Recent weeks have witnessed an on going debate within Israel as to the possibility of a unilateral military strike against the Iranian regime, however Haaretz reported that the doves currently hold sway within the cabinet, including interior minister Eli Yishai and finance minister Yuval Steinitz.
President George W Bush suggested it to the cadets at West Point:
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.
The UN Charter appears not to countenance it:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
*
Compare Qur’an 22:40:
Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged
and Matthew 5.44:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
My title, If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first, translates the words Haba lehorgecha, hashkem lehorgo which are found in the Talmud, Tractate Berakoth 58a.
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:59 am
The more serous question is not about the acceptability of preemptive war but with that of preventive war. Do we have reason to believe that Iran is about to attack us? Does Israel? If not then an attack against Iran by either would constitute preventive war. Where do we draw the line on preventive war? Is war always justifiable?
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:12 am
Hi Dave,
.
Preventative war is currently an illegal act of aggression under international law in all circumstances, except when sanctioned by the UNSC. Preemptive war falls under the right of self-defense in international law and the UN Charter and reacting to having been attacked is simply accepting a state of armed conflict. Most countries not run by Saddam Hussein are at pains to cast their military operations as something other than naked aggression.
.
Morally, I think you can make a case that some preventative wars are justified but these would be unusual exceptions that would have had some strong empirical basis ( the allied coalition, unseating Bonaparte after his return to power, would be an example – an anachronistic one too as it was perfectly “legal” to declare war on France back then without a casus belli).
.
Iran is not an existential threat to the US. It is a regional nuisance that we could severely damage or destroy anytime with an air campaign and the Mullahs know it.
.
Israel and Iran have been waging indirect proxy warfare for a generation – though Israel only seriously began hitting back recently with the MEK. Some Israeli leaders see Iran as an existential threat but some of their intel chiefs have not. CJCS Dempsey categorically stated that the US does not see Iran as an existential threat to Israel and that we have told the Israelis so. I think it is accurate to describe Iran as a “threat” to Israel that would escalate the proxy war if Teheran had nuclear weapons. I find it dubious that Iran would try to nuke Israel given Israel’s nuclear arsenal unless a new, more Mahdist leadership takes power. Then all bets would be off. I also think Iran would go through a fit of hubris after getting the bomb and possibly miscalculate the extent of American tolerance for their terrorist antics and provoke severe retaliation. Really severe. The US public will have zero tolerance for a mass casualty event of any kind on American soil and the relative restraint Bush showed after 9/11 will be absent with any kind of repeat.
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:32 am
[ Zen slipped his comment in while I was prepping mine ]
.
Hi Dave:
I’m not sure which question is the more serious, to be honest.
.
The phrase “If a man comes to kill you” supposes that he is on his way, that his determination of intent is now already accompanied by action towards its realization – and thus under this injunction, a preemptive war “launched in anticipation of immediate enemy aggression” would seem to be definitely covered, while the phrase “rise early and kill him first” — if enough emphasis is placed on “early” — might be used to suggest that a preventive war launched “when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned” could be acceptable.
.
But I’m no rabbinic scholar, and besides, the very concept of a “plan” can cover quite a range, from drafts, scenarios, worst case and contingency plans to full military preparedness lacking only a command before commencing hostilities.
.
And then there’s the question of the trustworthiness of intel, the political pressures that can play into its provision to decision-makers – and the psychology of those involved. On this last, see the comments about crossing the “psychological Rubicon” in Diana Wuenger‘s Thinking About Thinking About War – and particularly this quote from Dominic D.P. Johnson and Dominic Tierney‘s The Rubicon Theory of War:
This would seem to suggest a fuzzy equation along the lines of
The problem here is that in practice the implemental mindset may preempt the deliberative – so that emotionally empowered political beliefs may influence intelligence estimates, drive decision-making, or both.
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:22 pm
To the best of my knowledge nobody has presented any evidence that Iran is planning a nuclear attack on Israel on the United States or on Israel or even a major conventional attack. It’s a reasonable inference that no such evidence exists or, given how porous the U. S. information agencies are, we’d have been hearing about it. You don’t need to search very hard to read articles, posts, etc. advocating that the U. S. or Israel attack Iran. Consequently (since there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that Iran is preparing an attack), those advocates are prescribing preventive not preemptive war. That brings us back to my original comment.
Yes, the Iranians could go a lot farther in assuaging concerns both here and in Israel. Why haven’t they? IMO most of the saber-rattling by the Iranians and even, possibly, by the Israelis is for domestic political consumption. My concern is that treating the subject seriously makes it more acceptable and, in Charles’s terminology, moves the discussion from deliberative to implemental.
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Gotcha.
February 23rd, 2012 at 3:30 am
Hi Dave
.
I think the Iranians at this juncture, with the assassination campaign and hard sanctions are getting pretty much the bed they chose to lie in by pursuing nuclear weapons (and/or break-out capability) in violation of the NPT obligations and their support of Hezbollah and HAMAS terrorism against Israel and aid to Shiite militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers. As this is the game and rules by which Teheran chooses to play in international relations, I am all for demonstrating that we can play it better and turning the screws on the regime’s insiders.
.
That said, I am not in favor of starting a new war with Iran, or anywhere else, without a serious provocation. Even if all went well, we can’t afford it as a lark, either the direct or second and third order economic costs. Our military is burned out from high deployment and deferral of non-critical maintenance and in need of serious repair, retraining and rearmament. It may be that Iran may launch an attack or close the strait, in which case our response would have greater legitimacy and support. If Iran was on the verge of assembling a bomb, I might change my mind, but I have been watching this , at least casually, since around the early 90’s and the Iranians seem to have plateaued in their nuke development ( by design or technical limitations) expanding processing capability but not moving forward in critical steps for making detonation and miniaturization of a warhead possible.
.
Of course, I can always be wrong.
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Hi Zen,
.
RAND has been churning out pieces on Iran for sometime…one reason to believe we might fight these guys (big mistake IMHO).
February 24th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Until now the Iranians have been pretty stoic, and even in the recent botched attacks have played by the rules of the game. I suspect that even if the Israeli’s attack there nuclear facilities, they will avoid escalation, as this could risk drawing in the US. A failed Israeli attack (i can’t see them pulling it off) would end up providing them with the perfect excuse to proceed to breakout, but not sure they would take it.
As much as its enjoyable to poke fun at the Iranians, they have played the game with admirable patience, and up until now have turned the other cheek. There recent tit for tat response was justified to show the Israeli’s that there would be a price to pay, but at the same time they avoided escalating.
They realize that once involved America would settle for nothing less than the destruction of there current mode of government, as the examples of Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq (as well as there own past) have shown.
Its hard to see the Iranians ever deciding to breakout, the Israeli nuclear monopoly will stand as long as America remains the middleast’s power broker.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:47 am
[…] If a man comes to kill you, rise early and sneeze on him first. Yikes, I mean, kill’im first. […]