The Israeli airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked a global debate on preemptive military action. Proponents argue that Israel acted in self-defense to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which could pose an existential threat. They claim that diplomatic efforts have failed and a targeted strike was necessary to ensure national and regional security. Opponents argue the strike violated international law, as Iran had not attacked Israel. They warn it could escalate regional tensions, harm civilians, and undermine global institutions like the UN and IAEA. The debate raises a key question: Is it ever justified for a nation to strike first to stop a potential threat, or must it wait for an actual attack?

jin-ovw

1

Views 23 • 9days ago

World