In the pre-dawn hours of Saturday, Israel — with the direct participation of the United States — launched a military strike on Iran not in response to an attack, but in anticipation of one. No missiles were in the air. No invasion was underway. No publicly verified, imminent assault had occurred. What unfolded was not self-defense. It was a calculated act of aggression dressed up in the language of “preemption.”
Within hours of pulling the trigger, Israel declared a nationwide state of emergency, warning its own population to prepare for retaliation. That declaration was not a precaution — it was an admission. An admission that Israeli and U.S. leaders knew their actions were likely to provoke the very war they now claim they were trying to prevent.
The Evidence That Never Came
At no point did Israeli or U.S. officials present the public, Congress, or the international community with verifiable evidence of an immediate Iranian attack that would justify military action under international law. Instead, vague phrases like “imminent threats” and “proactive defense” were deployed — rhetorical shields long used to excuse wars that later proved unnecessary, unlawful, or catastrophic.
This was not the Caroline standard of self-defense. This was not a last resort. This was a discretionary strike, launched on intelligence claims that remain classified, unchallenged, and conveniently unverifiable.
America Crosses the Line — Again
The United States’ participation transforms this from a regional provocation into a global liability. Washington did not act in response to an attack on American soil, forces, or citizens. Congress did not authorize war. The American public was not consulted. Yet U.S. forces were committed to an offensive operation that now places American troops, diplomats, and civilians across the Middle East squarely in Iran’s crosshairs.
This is not alliance support. This is co-authorship.
By joining Israel in an unprovoked strike, the U.S. has once again asserted that its executive branch alone can decide when war begins — a precedent that erodes constitutional authority at home and legal norms abroad.
Israel’s “Emergency” Is a Self-Indictment
The Israeli government’s immediate declaration of emergency status exposes the central contradiction at the heart of this operation. If Iran posed an unavoidable, immediate threat, Israel would have been responding to fire — not lighting the match itself.
Instead, Israeli leaders knowingly initiated an action that all but guaranteed retaliation, then told civilians to brace for impact. That is not protection. That is risk transfer — shifting the consequences of elite decision-making onto ordinary people.
A Blunt Violation of International Law
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense against an armed attack or with Security Council authorization. Preventive war — striking because an adversary might become dangerous later — is explicitly illegal.
By any honest reading of international law, this operation fails the test. No attack was underway. No emergency authorization was granted. No transparent case was made. What remains is a raw assertion of power: we struck because we could.
The Hypocrisy Is the Point
For years, U.S. officials have condemned other nations for “destabilizing behavior,” “escalatory actions,” and “violations of sovereignty.” Yet here, the same government participates in a first strike against a sovereign state — then warns that retaliation would be unacceptable.
This is not deterrence. It is dominance theater.
Iran is now placed in a position where restraint signals weakness, but response risks total war. That dilemma was not imposed by fate — it was engineered.
A Region Pushed Toward War by Design, Not Destiny
This strike did not reduce danger. It multiplied it. It did not preserve peace. It shattered what remained of it. Israel and the United States chose escalation first, justification second, and accountability never.
Whatever follows — missile exchanges, proxy wars, or a wider regional collapse — will not be the result of an “inevitable conflict.” It will be the foreseeable consequence of a war of choice, initiated without transparency, legality, or public consent.
History will not ask who retaliated.
It will ask who struck first — and why they believed they would never have to answer for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment