17 Winter 2026 Whether an armed attack may be regarded as “imminent” will fall to be assessed by reference to all relevant circumstances, including (a) the nature and immediacy of the threat, (b) the probability of an attack, (c) whether the anticipated attack is part of a concerted pattern of continuing armed activity, (d) the likely scale of the attack and the injury, loss, or damage likely to result therefrom in the absence of mitigating action, and (e) the likelihood that there will be other opportunities to undertake effective action in self-defense that may be expected to cause less serious collateral injury, loss, or damage. The absence of specific evidence of where an attack will take place or of the precise nature of an attack does not preclude a conclusion that an armed attack is imminent for purposes of the exercise of a right of self-defense, provided that there is a reasonable and objective basis for concluding that an armed attack is imminent.33 On the assumption that Israel applied Bethlehem’s formulation, Israel would have been justified, on June 13, 2025, in reaching the conclusion that its military campaign was a necessary and proportionate response to an imminent armed attack by Iran, for the following reasons: First, the threat sought to be averted was the threat of one or more nuclear bombs being fired by ballistic missiles, the injury, loss and damage of which would have far exceeded the scale of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This threat was imminent, in the sense that, given the circumstances described in this article, Israel was entitled to assess that Iran would immediately employ its ballistic missiles to deliver a nuclear warhead, as soon as it was produced. Second, an attack by Iran on Israel (in the event it produced a nuclear weapon) was highly likely. In the circumstances, including Iran’s use of ballistic missiles in 2014, Israel was entitled to take the Ayatollahs at their word, and conclude that it was highly probable that Iran 33. Sir Daniel Bethlehem, “Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors,” 106 AM. J. INT’L L. 770, 775-76 (2012). would use a nuclear bomb to attack Israel. Third, there was clear evidence of a continuous pattern of Iranian armed activity (especially Iran’s violence via proxies, and IRGC-sponsored attacks on Jewish persons and Israeli citizens over many years). Fourth, the injury, loss and damage of such a nuclear attack would have been catastrophic. Fifth, there was no likelihood that Israel would have had another opportunity to eliminate the threat that would have caused less collateral damage. It must be observed that Israel was very successful in limiting collateral damage in the 12-day war, to the elimination of infrastructure and personnel essential to the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, and causing minimal loss of civilian lives. No critics of Israel’s attack have presented a credible alternative of other action that Israel could have taken to eliminate the very grave and imminent threat while causing less injury, loss or damage to Iran. Conclusion Operation Rising Lion was lawful for two independent reasons: first, the strikes constituted a lawful act of selfdefense against Iran in response to the unlawful military invasion and ongoing rocket, drone, and missile attacks Iran and its proxies launched against Israel commencing October 7-8, 2023 (or alternatively, commencing with the first Iranian drone and missile attack against Israel on April 13, 2024). Second, the strikes constituted a lawful exercise of Israel’s inherent right to anticipatory selfdefense against the imminent threat Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs posed to Israel.n Steven E. Zipperstein teaches at UCLA, Tel Aviv University and the Hertie School in Berlin. He is also Director of the UCLA Younes and Soraya Nazarian Center for Israel Studies and Distinguished Senior Scholar at the UCLA Center for Middle East Development. Andrew Tucker is Director General of The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=