Strike first, argue later: The disputed legality of Israel’s Iran offensive

“We will take the initiative and attack the enemy… to assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.” — Menachem Begin, defending Israel’s 1967 pre-emptive strike on Egypt.

Nearly six decades after Begin’s declaration, Israel has once again invoked that logic to justify its attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The framing is familiar: existential danger, pre-emptive action, national survival. But today, as in 1967, one fundamental question remains unresolved: was it legal?

Last month, Israel launched a bold and unprecedented air campaign deep inside Iranian territory. Over ten days, Israeli jets struck nuclear facilities, missile infrastructure, and senior military commanders. Israeli officials described the strikes as a “pre-emptive, precise… offensive,” intended to thwart what they called an “imminent existential threat”.