Is Iranian Response to Israel Rational, Reasonable?
Many Israeli officials and commentators interpret an Iranian general's statements about a "pre-emptive strike" as an escalation of the threat against the Jewish state. Al-Monitor's Yossi Melman attributies the warning to psychological warfare, writing that Iran's leaders have so far behaved rationally and know their limitations.
A few days ago General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Air Force and Space wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, said in a TV interview that his country "would not open a war" but may consider initiating a "pre-emptive strike" if it is certain that the "enemy" plans to attack Iran.
Israeli officials and commentators rush to interpret the statement by concluding that it reflects another Iranian "threat" against the Jewish state and new "tension and escalation."
But to my ears, the Iranian general's words sound rational and reasonable. Any country has the right to self-defense, which is acknowledged by international law and the UN charter. This right justifies the country's decision to pre-empt if it believes that its enemy is going to attack it. This is exactly what Israel did in June 1967, when it felt that the Egyptian army was preparing to invade it.
There are two truths in this war of words between Israel and Iran. One, unpleasant as it might be, has to be stated. It is Israel which is threatening Iran with a military strike. Israeli leaders and officials talk about it publicly, hint about it, leak it and brief journalists. Since Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel's prime minister, not a single week has passed without rough talk by him or his "Siamese twin" Defense Minister Ehud Barak or other Israeli cabinet ministers.
