(Strategic Assessment-Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv University) Roy van Keulen - The Six-Day War demonstrated that under certain circumstances, self-defense may be invoked to maintain a defensible situation, even if an armed attack is not imminent but an indefensible situation is imminent. Furthermore, we have seen that there are threats with which no state can be expected to live when there exists a manifest intent to injure, an active degree of preparation that makes that intent a positive danger, and a general situation in which waiting, or doing anything other than fighting, greatly magnifies the risk. The intention of Iran toward the State of Israel has been expressed clearly by President Ahmadinejad, who stated that Israel must be wiped from the map. When placed in the context of other statements made by the Iranian regime, it becomes apparent that the intentions toward Israel are the same as the intentions of Israel's adversaries prior to the Six-Day War, namely the destruction of the State of Israel. Given the fact that Iran is the only state that calls for the destruction of another state and given the fact that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorist groups that not only share but also actively pursue this goal day in and day out, Iran's intentions toward Israel are unequivocally clear. Similar to how Israel, prior to the Six-Day War, did not have to accept the continued buildup of enemy forces until the point where victory of its adversaries would be a fait accompli, neither does Israel have to accept the continued buildup of Iran's nuclear program until the point referred to as the zone of immunity.
2013-02-18 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive