|
Trending Topics
|
Source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/suicide-timidity-imminent-threat
Suicide by Timidity
(Tablet) Irwin Mansdorf - "No imminent threat" is a talking point which has gained prominence with the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran. For opponents of the operation, the phrase serves as evidence that the rationale for attacking Iran is fraudulent. It functions as a linguistic sedative to assure a nervous public that the wolf is not yet at the door, and to assert that any military action at this time constitutes reckless and unnecessary warmongering. But by reducing the complexity of strategic judgment to a single metric - is an attack occurring right this second? - we have traded genuine security for a dangerous and, ultimately temporary, emotional relief. Humans are hardwired to undervalue future risks in favor of present comforts. For a modern populace, the "immediate reward" of social stability today - no disruption of the daily routine - is so intoxicating that we are willing to accept the "delayed punishment" of an adversary completing a nuclear facility that renders future defense impossible. We are, in effect, choosing a quiet Tuesday today at the cost of a radioactive Wednesday tomorrow. The traditional legal formulation for anticipatory self-defense required a threat to be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." It emerged in the mid-19th century when armies moved at the speed of a horse. But modern warfare has compressed the timeline of destruction into a digital pulse. Today, an adversary can achieve a "breakthrough" that permanently alters the strategic balance before a single soldier crosses a border. Equating "imminent" with "immediate" risks transforming the sacred right of self-defense into a strategic suicide pact. If we wait until the missile is airborne, we have already lost. When we isolate "imminence" to the final seconds before a nuclear detonation, we allow the regime to build an irreversible capability under the cover of our own legalistic hesitation. Progressives who champion human rights and oppose authoritarianism find themselves trapped by a doctrine that effectively protects the world's most oppressive regimes during the only period when preventive action remains viable. Waiting for a "smoking gun" is a surrender of sovereignty. Strategic leadership requires acting before an adversary secures an irreversible advantage. Passivity framed as "restraint" does not prevent war; it emboldens the aggressor. When a state approaches irreversible nuclear weapons capability, coupled with ballistic missile capability, the "final effective window" for action is not a matter of hours before a launch, but the final realistic opportunity to prevent the breakthrough altogether. The writer is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, specializing in political psychology.