As a student of world affairs, I understand Israel’s preoccupation with security matters, even if I wonder at times if being less heavy-handed would better further their national aims. Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities was no surprise.

Back in 1981 Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq to stop that country’s nuclear weapons program. It established a precedent (for Israel) and an obligation for future Israeli governments: If a hostile neighbour is trying to build a nuclear weapon, you have to stop them before they are successful.

Given the threats coming out of Iran to obliterate Israel, and its’ state sponsorship of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, you can understand the uneasiness in political circles (and the population) as to what might happen if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons.

From a legal perspective, one country attacking another due to the possibility of a future attack seems a little hazy to me. Mind you, you could also argue there is never legal justification for war, the rules of war notwithstanding.

And, while you can make a case for Israel’s attack, I’m not sure the case for American intervention is as strong. It isn’t as if Iran is a threat to the USA, even if it were able to develop nuclear weapons.

Mind you, given Iran’s track record, and its continual sponsorship of terrorism worldwide, it is understandable to be concerned about what would happen if it had nuclear weapons. The fear is they would use them, something that has not happened in 80 years.

The Israeli (and the American thinking) is you take no chances. A government headed by an unstable leader with absolute power cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Pot, meet kettle.