Escalating Middle East Tensions: Israel's 'Preemptive Strike' on Iran Sparks Retaliation and Global Legal Debate

Today, Israel announced it had carried out a "preemptive strike" against Iran, with subsequent confirmation of US participation. In response, Iran immediately launched retaliatory attacks targeting US and Israeli-related facilities in Gulf states. In the UAE, fragments of an interceptor missile fell into a residential area, killing one civilian, rapidly intensifying tensions in the Middle East.

Israeli Defense Minister Katz explained the action as a "preemptive strike" to eliminate threats to the nation. However, within the international community, particularly on social media, vigorous debate has erupted over the legality of this action under international law. Many point out that the UN Charter does not permit "preemptive strikes," and voices are rising for Japan to issue a message condemning Israel and the United States, given Japan's stated position of "aiming for the 'rule of law' through faithful adherence to international law."

Strong demands are being made to the Japanese government, including requests to clarify "under what framework of international law it positions a 'preemptive strike'," "to present a clear legal assessment," and "to fulfill its responsibility for peace diplomacy by demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities." The majority of voices are calling for a clear expression of "regret" over actions violating international law, rather than administrative responses such as "gathering information" or "making a comprehensive judgment."

Concerns are also being expressed that the progression of this situation could affect not only the responses of Gulf states but also the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and Japan's defense policy. Grief over civilian casualties and criticism of easy military action are widespread, with strong desires for the avoidance of war and a swift cessation of combat.

There are also voices pointing out a "double standard," as nations that once condemned the Pearl Harbor attack now conduct their own preemptive strikes. This situation critically questions the behavioral norms of nations in the international community and Japan's stance towards them.

The context

This article discusses a hypothetical but plausible escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran. Historically, Israel views Iran's nuclear program and its support for regional proxies (like Hezbollah and Hamas) as an existential threat, while Iran views Israel as an illegal occupier. Both nations have engaged in a "shadow war" for years, involving cyberattacks, assassinations, and indirect military confrontations. A direct "preemptive strike" by Israel on Iranian soil, especially with confirmed US involvement, would represent a significant escalation from this shadow war to open conflict.

The concept of a "preemptive strike" (or "preventive war") is highly contentious under international law. The UN Charter, specifically Article 51, recognizes the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs." However, a "preemptive" strike, defined as an attack launched to prevent a *future* attack that is not yet imminent, generally falls outside the scope of permissible self-defense under most interpretations of international law. This is why the article highlights the international debate regarding the legality of such an action.

Japan, a nation with a pacifist constitution adopted after World War II, places a strong emphasis on international law and peaceful resolution of disputes. Its foreign policy consistently advocates for multilateralism and the rule of law. Therefore, any perceived violation of international law, especially regarding military action, draws significant attention and calls for a clear stance from the Japanese government, often urging restraint and diplomatic solutions rather than military intervention. The mention of Taiwan reflects broader regional security concerns for Japan, as it is keenly aware of how international precedents regarding the use of force could impact its own neighborhood.