The recent Israeli attacks on Iran reignited the contentious discourse regarding the moral and legal implications surrounding the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. Based on the recognized international legal principles, but vaguely referenced in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it legitimizes the use of force by states in reaction to an imminent armed assault. Nonetheless, in reality, powerful nations have misused this doctrine to justify unilateral military actions under the pretense of preemption.

This article contends that the United States and Israel have frequently invoked anticipatory self-defense not as a final measure, but as a political tool for legitimizing military operations that contravene the principles of international law. Examining instances from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Six-Day War, from Operation Opera to the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, these examples expose a concerning trend: Anticipatory self-defense has transitioned from a protective measure into a legal pretext for achieving strategic dominance.

The inability of international bodies—especially the UN Security Council—to effectively challenge such actions has further weakened global standards, undermining the legal framework established to avert the arbitrary use of force.

The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense deals with using force in response to imminent threats. Proponents of this doctrine argue about the destructiveness of the latest combat technologies. According to them, states have employed cutting-edge defense systems that will lead to absolute obliteration even before retaliation.

It is asserted that in the presence of nuclear weapons, a state cannot withstand the first attack from the enemy. Hence, the lethality of modern military technologies necessitates the first strike. However, eminent political scholars such as Noam Chomsky called it an imperialistic tool to maintain geopolitical dominance. In his book Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky criticized the Bush doctrine of preemption as “the doctrine of pre-emptive war adopted by the Bush administration is simply a return to the law of the jungle.”

Nevertheless, the question of the legality of this doctrine remained contentious, with innumerable different perspectives. Self-defense in international law is designed merely to resist an armed attack when all other means of negotiations have been exhausted. However, by no means does it justify the initiation of an attack.

The idea of anticipatory self-defense has evolved after 1945 and has been utilized incessantly by Israel and the US to excuse their actions. Regarding these actions, the United Nations has always remained silent. This deafening silence goes against the mandate of the UN. This complacency makes the UN complicit in the actions of the US and Israel.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US president received vague intel about the USSR’s transport of ballistic missiles to Cuba. The USA established a naval blockade in international waters to cease this operation. Those actions directly violated international law, advocating against the use of force. However, the USA weaponized the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense to fortify........

© Paradigm Shift