Web Desk | June 21st 2025
As tensions in the Middle East increase, critics are drawing parallels between Israel’s recent military actions against Iran and America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 – both interventions being justified on “threat-based pretexts”, even without concrete evidence suggesting an immediate danger.
Fawaz Gerges, an esteemed Middle East scholar, warned in The Guardian that Israel’s campaign echoes the flawed logic behind Iraq War and lacks legal basis under international law. U.S. rhetoric supports Israel’s offensive against Hamas which “is a war of choice not necessity”.
Gerges pointed to intelligence from both the CIA and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating Iran wasn’t actively developing a nuclear bomb despite claims made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former President Trump, among others. +1 for Gerges on The Guardian website
Observers point out that both the Iraq and Israel strikes were predicated on false or unverified threat claims, with Iraq’s pretension of weapons of mass destruction later disproven; now critics claim Israel is creating urgency around Iran’s nuclear program–despite IAEA statements to the contrary; some analysts refer to this campaign as preventive or punitive rather than defensive; for more information please go to YouTube.com
An increasing number of international legal experts echo this concern. For example, the International Commission of Jurists has warned against Israel’s actions under international law due to scant evidence Iran planned an imminent nuclear attack; whilst many experts agree Iran posed no such threat. (Wikipedia.org for example has the text here).
One legal scholar asserted that even under a broad interpretation of anticipatory self-defense, Israel’s strike did not meet the standard of necessity and immediacy (En.wikipedia.org: +2).
Netanyahu defends Israel’s strikes as preemptive self-defense, in order to neutralize “existential threats.” Echoing U.S. rhetoric from post-9/11, Netanyahu asserts Iran’s nuclear program poses a direct danger to regional stability and Israel’s safety. His supporters hold that airstrikes against hardened targets like Fordow are necessary in order to disrupt clandestine weapon development efforts.
Critics caution, however, that taking military action now risks sparking an escalation similar to what occurred after the Iraq invasion. Gerges warns that doing so now could unite Iranians behind their regime, advance nuclear ambitions further and destabilise the region further. wsj.com | theguardian.com
Washington-based legal experts recently highlighted how regime change by force without an effective transitional plan often ends tragically, using Iraq, Libya and Gaza as examples to draw their conclusion from. (Source: theguardian.com).
From a military strategy perspective, air power alone may not meet long-term objectives. According to The Wall Street Journal, Israel’s lack of ground forces limits their potential to follow through; suggesting these strikes might delay Iran’s capabilities rather than dismantle them altogether. * These data were obtained via Daily Beast/WSJ/Time sources +7
As for international community response, divisions remain. European nations seek restraint and diplomacy while U.S. officials generally strive for moderation. President Trump signaled support for Israel’s campaign while opponents in Congress invoked checks on war authority similar to what occurred prior to Iraq War declencher theguardian.com
Key Takeaways:
Similarities between Israel and Iraq 2003: Critics contend Israel, like its American counterpart before invading Iraq, is portraying Iran’s nuclear capability as a pressing danger without providing convincing evidence for such claims.
Legal Concern: International jurists warn Israel’s strikes may violate international law and fail to meet immediacy requirements for self-defense claims, according to legal analysis done on them en.wikipedia.org + 1
Preventive or Preemptive? There has long been debate as to whether Israel’s actions qualify as legitimate defense or preemptively aggressive operations, which has created much division and debate within Israel itself and worldwide. With all this debate comes confusion regarding Israel’s intentions in Syria vs Iran conflict: Are Israel’s actions preventive defense or preemptive aggressive operations (PAO). For more on this topic see En.Wiki.Org/wiki/Preventive_vs_Preemptive in terms of their efficacy (+1). WHY THEY SHOULDN’T they Do This… WHY NOT…..? WHY dont they act this way: Disagreements over this point arise regarding whether Israel’s actions qualify as legitimate defence or as preemptively aggressive operations (preemptively aggressive operations), or both (according to Wikipedia/wikipedia vs preemptively active measures). For many Palestinians these activities qualify either way (defended or preventively aggressive operations/ preemptively aggressive operations). Whilst
Regional and historical context: Echoes of destabilization seen after Iraq, Libya and Gaza serve to illustrate the risks inherent to using military force without proper governance frameworks in place.
Strategic Limitations: Without ground operations, airstrikes alone may only serve to delay Iran’s nuclear program instead of entirely dismantle it.
As the world watches closely, many hope non-military routes will triumph; but as history shows us, once-liberating rhetoric can have lasting repercussions that threaten global stability for decades.