The Whitewashing of an Unjust and Unnecessary War

Israel’s new war against Iran is as unnecessary and unjust as can be.

David French remains an incorrigible defender of illegal aggression:

While it’s far too soon to tell whether Israel’s military strikes will cripple or even substantially set back Iran’s nuclear program, the necessity of stopping Iran’s march to a bomb [bold mine-DL] is far more clear today than it was even three years ago.

Iran was not “marching” to get a bomb when Israel attacked. There was no “march” to be stopped. The Iranians were involved in negotiations in which they were willing to accept significant restrictions on their nuclear program to guarantee that it would remain peaceful. There was no need for the Israeli government to strike, and they had no right to attack in any case. Israel’s new war against Iran is as unnecessary and unjust as can be.

I keep dwelling on these points because there is a concerted effort to whitewash Israel’s aggression. French’s column is one example of that effort. His entire argument is an elaborate exercise in blaming the victim. He conjures up scenarios of what Iran might do at some point in the future in the event that it acquired its own nuclear weapons at the same time that he is cheering on the current aggression committed by Israel, a rogue nuclear weapons state.

French writes:

Now, imagine Iran with even a modest nuclear arsenal. Even if it didn’t try to obliterate Israeli cities, it could use its arsenal to grant it a freedom of action in conventional war that it currently lacks.

Of course the point is that we would have to imagine Iran with such an arsenal, because it doesn’t have one and isn’t trying to build one. In this imaginary world, Iran wouldn’t launch a first strike on Israel, because Israel has a rather sizable nuclear arsenal. Supposing that a nuclear arsenal would grant Iran greater freedom of action in conventional war, Iran would have to be in the habit of fighting conventional wars, and the last one of those that they fought was when Iraq invaded. The entire justification for attacking Iran is based on a fantasy.

What makes French’s argument so irritating is that Israel’s attacks aren’t making an Iranian nuclear weapon less likely. There was no “march to a bomb,” but Netanyahu may have just inspired them to start one. No matter how much damage Israeli forces manage to do to Iran’s facilities, they have just given the Iranian government an incentive to build the weapons that they have not been pursuing for more than two decades. If there is one thing that might push the Iranian leadership into taking that gamble, it is an unprovoked attack on their country.

A war cannot be just if it produces greater evils than it prevents. Israel’s attacks aren’t preventing anything, and they could very well produce the outcome that everyone claims not to want. The attacks are causing significant destruction and they have already killed hundreds of people, but they serve no legitimate purpose. There was no imminent threat and therefore no possible justification for resorting to force.

French brings up the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but he conveniently leaves out that Israel is playing the role of Russia as the nuclear-armed aggressor. Like Russia, Israel had no right to attack. Like Russia, it faced no dire threat that required military action. Like Russia, Israel is trampling on international law and the U.N. Charter. It isn’t surprising that French doesn’t see or won’t acknowledge the similarities. French is also a die-hard defender of the illegal invasion of Iraq, and there is still no sign that he has learned anything from that disaster after more than twenty years.