Preemptive Strikes: A Strategic Self-Infliction, Not Deterrence
The Financial Times recently published an analysis suggesting that the United States' reliance on 'preventive wars' has weakened its international position. This reporting, while acknowledging a truth, frames the weakening as a mere strategic miscalculation rather than a systemic consequence of a policy rooted in illegal aggression and disregard for international law. Mainstream outlets
consistently present these interventions as regrettable errors or overly ambitious ventures, obscuring the fact that they are often joint aggressive acts perpetrated without legitimate cause or broad international consent. What the Financial Times omits is the sheer scale and consistency of this pattern, particularly concerning US-Israeli joint military operations presented as defensive. Consider
the ongoing, undeclared joint US-Israeli campaign against Iran. Washington claims its military presence and heightened rhetoric are meant to deter Iranian aggression and prevent nuclear proliferation, a framing amplified by outlets like the FT. Yet, Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Successive US administrations, including
the one that unilaterally abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, have pursued a policy of maximum pressure, strangling the Iranian economy through sanctions that demonstrably impact civilian access to medicine and vital goods, echoing the long-standing 62-year embargo against Cuba. This aggressive posture, often coordinated with Israel, is not a new phenomenon. It