What in the world?!

On February 28, the US President launched Operation "Epic Fury," justifying the strikes on the ground that Iran posed an “imminent” threat due to its nuclear weapon ambitions. But as the bombing continues, we must ask: Was the danger truly at our doorstep, or did we simply redefine a word to fit a preventive strike?

In common usage, imminent describes a danger that is about to happen, not one that is distant or speculative. In law, it relates to an act of self-defense against an immediate threat that could pose substantial harm, and that a "reasonable person" could determine as justified. In international law, the United Nations Charter allows for self-defense under Article 51. 

However, a more specific standard is used for the legal concept of “anticipatory self-defense,” known as the "Caroline Doctrine." To claim self-defense without being attacked first, a state must demonstrate the threat is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Was Iran at that threshold? To build a working nuclear weapon, a nation needs four things: fissile material, a workable bomb design, a delivery missile, and the political will to create them. While Iran’s capability to produce fissile material could have been measured in weeks or months, the engineering required to build a deliverable warhead was still in years. More important than technology is the political will. This, Iran clearly had. Still, was this threat imminent? 

Critics point to the "Sitting Duck" dilemma: Must a country wait passively for a threat to mature before acting? In an age of hypersonic missiles, waiting for "full maturity" can be fatal. But there is a vital distinction between a preventive strike (stopping a hypothetical and non-specific future threat) and a pre-emptive one (stopping an identifiable “ticking clock”).

Given Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and its vocal advocacy for the destruction of Israel, it could be argued that there was a basis for a pre-emptive action for Israel. However, it was not for the US; thus, Iran would fall in the preventive category where US interests are concerned.

For the US, geography muddies the "imminence" claim. Iran sits 6,500 miles from the US mainland. While it undoubtedly poses a strategic threat to US interests in the Middle East, oil routes, and allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, it does not pose an existential threat to the US homeland. However, to Israel, it could.

We have seen this playbook before. In 2006, North Korea exploded its first nuclear device after decades of Western anxiety. The world didn't end. Instead, a new reality set in. Today, the US, Japan, and South Korea live with a nuclear North Korea not because they want to, but because they must. All trade and diplomacy continue. All that North Korea accomplished is its survivability, meaning it cannot be bombed. History shows that nuclear weapons become tools of diplomatic coercion and deterrence. To do otherwise would be suicide. Like India and Pakistan, or the US and the USSR during the Cold War, even the most bitter rivals eventually realize that to use a nuke is to invite mutual destruction.

By launching Operation Epic Fury, the US decided that the "North Korea model" was unacceptable for the Middle East. But we should be honest about the vocabulary. Iran was a growing challenge and a regional menace, but under the Caroline Doctrine, it was not an imminent threat to the United States.

This matters to Kentuckians for two reasons. 

First, because two Kentuckians have been killed in the conflict so far. The longer the bombing continues, the more casualties from the Commonwealth and elsewhere are likely to follow.

And second, because Kentucky’s congressional delegation is divided, with a slight majority in favor of the ongoing attack on Iran. US Sen. Rand Paul and Reps. Thomas Massie and Morgan McGarvey oppose the bombing and supported limiting the President’s power through a War Powers Resolution, which did not pass. On the other hand, Sen. McConnell and Reps. Andy Barr, Hal Rogers and Brett Guthrie support military action. Rep. James Comer has not taken a public stance on the matter. According to a recent Marist poll, 56% of Kentuckians overall oppose the attack. 

By striking now, the US hasn't just acted on behalf of Israel; the current administration has signaled that international law is not a concern. That “imminent” will be bent around political objectives that appear to maximize power. It’s not about timing. Here, Israel saw an opportunity and took action while the US, without a clear rationale, seems just to be following Israel’s lead.

Jose E. Mora, PhD, is a former Professor and Chair of Global Affairs of the American University of Phnom Penh in Cambodia. Mora and his wife, Melissa, recently moved to Berea in order to be closer to their four adult children.