Latest news with #MichaelCorleone
Spectator
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Confessions of a new intake Labour MP: ‘We're not here to make friends'
Keir Starmer has struck again. Compounding his reputation as a ruthless operator – like Michael Corleone – he is settling all family business by removing the whip from a number of troublemaking MPs, including Neil Duncan Jordan, Chris Hinchcliff, Brian Leishman and Rachel Maskell. This comes after each led respective revolts on winter fuel, planning reform, Grangemouth and the welfare changes. Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin have all lost their trade envoy roles too. Many of the MPs who have been cast adrift are from the new intake, and so today we are joined on the podcast by Mike Tapp, MP for Dover and Deal, to give his reflections on a year in office. On the podcast: he offers James Heale his advice on stopping the boats; details how Labour can start to deliver tangible change for people in constituencies much like his own; explains why Keir was right to suspend his fellow MPs; and gives us an insight into the future Labour stars from the new intake. Produced by Oscar Edmondson.
The Guardian
05-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Emil Bove's confirmation hearing was a travesty
In The Godfather, a Mafia turncoat appears before a Senate committee in order to testify as a protected witness about its operations. Frank Pentangeli, 'Frankie Five Angels', a capo allied with the old godfather, Vito Corleone, has had a falling out with the new one, his son Michael Corleone, who attempted to assassinate him. As Pentangeli is about to speak at the hearing, he notices his brother Vincenzo, a mafioso from Sicily, seated behind him. Michael has arranged his grim looming presence. Pentangeli is suddenly reminded of his oath of omerta, the code of silence. He recants on the spot, saying that he just told the FBI 'what they wanted to hear'. On 25 June, Emil Bove, Donald Trump's former personal attorney, whom he had named associate deputy attorney general, and now after five months seeks to elevate as a federal judge on the US third circuit court of appeals, appeared before the Senate judiciary committee for his confirmation hearing. He faced, at least potentially, a far-ranging inquiry into his checkered career. There were charges of abusive behavior as an assistant US attorney. There was his role as enforcer of the alleged extortion of New York City Mayor Eric Adams to cooperate in the Trump administration's migrant roundups in exchange for dropping the federal corruption case against him. There was Bove's dismissal of FBI agents and prosecutors who investigated the January 6 insurrection. And there was more. On the eve of the hearing, the committee received a shocking letter from a whistleblower, a Department of Justice attorney, who claimed that Bove said, in response to a federal court ruling against the administration's immigration deportation policy: 'DoJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such order.' Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the committee chairperson, the ancient mariner of the right wing at 91 years old, gaveled the session to order by invoking new rules never before used with a nominee in a confirmation hearing. Instead of opening the questioning to examine the nominee's past, he would thwart it. Grassley announced that Bove would be shielded by the 'deliberative-process privilege and attorney-client privilege' from 'an intense opposition campaign by my Democratic colleagues and by their media allies'. This was the unique imposition of a code of omerta. 'My understanding is that Congress has never accepted the constitutional validity of either such privilege,' objected Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. 'This witness has no right to invoke that privilege,' said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. But Grassley stonewalled. Prominently seated in the audience behind Bove were the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, and the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Never before had such top officials been present at a confirmation hearing for a judicial nominee. The federal government through the justice department would inevitably appear in cases before his court. The attorney general and her deputy created an immediate perception of conflict of interest, an ethical travesty. But Bondi and Blanche were not there to silence Bove. They were there to intimidate the Republican senators. If there were any dissenters among them, they knew that they would suffer retribution. 'Their being here is for one reason – to whip the Republicans into shape,' said Blumenthal. 'To make sure that they toe the line. They are watching.' The rise of Emil Bove is the story of how a lawyer from the ranks associated himself with Donald Trump, proved his unswerving loyalty to become a made man, and has been richly rewarded with a nomination for a lifetime federal judgeship, presumably to continue his service. In his opening statement, Bove said: 'I want to be clear about one thing up front: there is a wildly inaccurate caricature of me in the mainstream media. I'm not anybody's henchman. I'm not an enforcer.' Bove began his career as a paralegal and then a prosecutor in the US attorney's office for the southern district of New York. He was known for his attention to detail, relentlessness and sharp elbows. Seeking a promotion to supervisor, a group of defense attorneys including some who had been prosecutors in his office wrote a letter claiming he had 'deployed questionable tactics, including threatening defendants with increasingly severe charges the lawyers believed he couldn't prove', according to Politico. Bove posted the letter in his office to display his contempt. He was denied the promotion, but eventually received it. As a supervisor, Bove was known as angry, belittling and difficult. He developed an abrasive relationship with FBI agents. After complaints, an executive committee in the US attorney's office investigated and suggested he be demoted. He pleaded he would exercise more self-control and was allowed to remain in his post. 'You are aware of this inquiry and their recommendation?' Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, asked Bove about the incident. Bove replied: 'As well as the fact that I was not removed.' In 2021, in the prosecution of an individual accused of evading sanctions on Iran, a team Bove supervised as the unit chief won a jury verdict. But then the US attorney's office discovered the case was 'marred by repeated failures to disclose exculpatory evidence and misuse of search-warrant returns' by the prosecutors handling the case, according to the judge. Declaring that 'errors and ethical lapses in this case are pervasive', she vacated the verdict and dismissed the charges as well as chastising those prosecutors for falling short of their 'constitutional and ethical obligations' in 'this unfortunate chapter' and criticizing Bove for providing sufficient supervision to prevent those failures. Bove became a private attorney, joining the law firm of Todd Blanche, whom Trump hired in 2023 to defend him in the New York case involving his payment of hush-money to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Blanche brought Bove along as his second chair. The qualities that made him a black sheep in the US attorney's office recommended him to Blanche and his client. In Bove's questioning of David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer, about his payments to women in his 'catch-and-kill' scheme to protect Trump, Bove twice botched the presentation of evidence, was admonished by the judge and apologized. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies of financial fraud to subvert an election. Upon Trump's election, he appointed Bove as acting deputy attorney general and then associate deputy once Todd Blanche was confirmed as deputy, reuniting the law partners, both Trump defense attorneys now resuming that role in an official capacity. On 31 January, Bove sent two memos, the first firing dozens of justice department prosecutors and the second firing FBI agents who had worked on the cases of January 6 insurrectionists, whom Trump pardoned on his inauguration day. Bove quoted Trump that their convictions were 'a grave national injustice'. He also had his own history of conflict with fellow prosecutors and FBI agents. Asked about his actions by Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, Bove presented himself as even-handed. 'I did and continue to condemn unlawful behavior, particularly violence against law enforcement,' he said. 'At the same time, I condemn heavy-handed and unnecessary tactics by prosecutors and agents.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion In February, Bove played a principal role in filing criminal charges claiming corruption in the Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The head of the criminal division at the US attorney's office of the District of Columbia, Denise Cheung, believing there was no factual basis to the accusation, resigned with a statement praising those who are 'following the facts and the law and complying with our moral, ethical and legal obligations'. When Whitehouse sought to ask Bove about the episode, Bove replied: 'My answer is limited to: 'I participated in the matter.'' Whitehouse turned to Grassley. 'Do you see my point now?' he said. The code of omerta was working to frustrate questioning. Bove also deflected questions about his central role in the dropping of charges against Eric Adams. The acting US attorney for the southern district of New York, Danielle Sassoon, had resigned in protest, writing in a letter that Bove's memo directing her to dismiss the charges had 'nothing to do with the strength of the case'. She noted that in the meeting to fix 'what amounted to a quid pro quo … Mr Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion.' Questioned about the Adams scandal, Bove denied any wrongdoing. Senator John A Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, played his helpmate. He asked Bove to 'swear to your higher being' that there was no quid pro quo. 'Absolutely not,' Bove said. 'Do you swear on your higher being?' 'On every bone in my body,' Bove replied. Hallelujah! Then Bove was asked about the letter sent by former justice department lawyer Erez Reuveni alleging that Bove planned the defiance of court rulings against the administration's deportation policy. 'I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,' Bove said. Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, repeatedly asked him if it was true he had said 'fuck you' as his suggested plan of action against adverse court decisions. Bove hemmed and hawed, and finally said: 'I don't recall.' Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, remarked: 'I am hoping more evidence is going to come out that shows that you lied before this committee.' Grassley, however, succeeded in protecting Bove. Bondi and Blanche stared down the Republican senators whose majority can put Bove on the bench. He is Trump's model appointment of what he wants in a judge. In announcing his nomination, Trump tweeted: 'Emil Bove will never let you down!' In another scene in The Godfather, Virgil 'The Turk' Sollozzo, another Mafia boss, comes to Vito Corleone, offering a deal to cut him in on the narcotics trade. 'I need, Don Corleone,' he says, 'those judges that you carry in your pockets like so many nickels and dimes.' It was an offer that the Godfather refused. He left the drugs, but kept the judges. Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist and co-host of The Court of History podcast
AllAfrica
20-06-2025
- Business
- AllAfrica
How China got the US over a rare earth barrel
Who's gonna tell you when it's too late? Who's gonna tell you things aren't so great? You can't go on, thinking nothing's wrong, but now Who's gonna drive you home tonight? – The Cars 'Just when I thought I was out,' Michael Corleone lamented, 'They pull me back in.' This column was originally intended to be about the lamentable state of America's rare earths dependency and how decades of delusional thinking – 'Rare earths are not rare!', 'We taught China rare earth processing!' – led to the current predicament. But who cares about rare earths now; the Middle East is once again a conflagration likely to ruin all of US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby's best-laid pivot to Asia plans whether President Donald Trump drops that 30,000-pound bomb on Iran or not. The Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean will tie down US naval assets for another decade. Michael Corleone's fatal flaw was that he did not understand what business he was in. He was a gangster, and there is no escape from murder, death and ruin in that line of work. Karma came for Philip Tattaglia, Barzini, Cuneo, Stracci, Moe Green and Hyman Roth. Why would it be any different for Michael and the Corleone family? Since the end of World War II, the United States has run a maritime empire and there is no escape from entanglement, overstretch and ruin in that line of work. Karma came for the Minoans, Phoenicians, Italian merchant states, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, British and Japanese empires. Why would it be any different for America? The reason the US is dependent on China for rare earth elements is that ores with extractable concentrations are, in fact, rare and processing these ores into usable concentrates is, in fact, incredibly difficult. The purpose of maritime empires is to harvest wealth from far-flung imperial possessions – or, more palatably, a rules-based international order. This need not be as self-serving as it sounds. Japan was allowed to have a very nice four-decade-long run between 1945 and 1985. Europe got the Marshall Plan and eight decades of security, allowing the old country (literally) to fund generous pension and welfare programs. Nixon's rapprochement with Mao removed the US Seventh Fleet as a Pacific threat, paving the way for China's coastal industrialization. In return, the US got decades of Middle Eastern oil arguably for free (crude oil paid for in dollars recycled into US investments). America also got manufactured goods from Asia and Europe on the same trade and creamed off the best and brightest from all corners of the world to become the empire's minions. All of the above should be grounds for celebration. It's all America could have asked for as a maritime empire. And yet, we are all familiar with the downsides. Maritime empires contain the seeds of their own destruction, magnifying capitalism's iniquities as wealth concentrates in ever fewer hands. Karl Marx wrote 'Das Kapital'at the height of the British Empire, showcasing brutal exploitation in Britain's own factories. The Trump presidency (both terms) is a reaction to America's neglected working class. The reason the US is dependent on China for rare earth elements is because processing technology has advanced multiple generations in the past two decades. The majority of the world's rare earths are now processed in Baotou Inner Mongolia, largely using third-generation sulfuric acid roasting technology, having long ago abandoned polluting in-situ leaching. Because of unavoidable foreign entanglements, maritime empires are not able to enjoy what should be a major perk of hegemony – to not have to expend resources on the military. The spoils of maritime empires can only be collected with expensive navies and far-flung bases if not occasional (perhaps continual) spillage of blood. And America's collected spoils have, of late, not been well distributed among the citizenry, particularly among those asked to do the bleeding. Mischief is irresistible for empires with forward-deployed militaries. The US has conducted about 200 military interventions since the end of WWII, 50 since the end of the Cold War. The most significant of these have been abject disasters – Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan – draining the empire of blood, treasure, domestic vitality and international goodwill. Mischief is once again at work, enticing America back into the Middle East just a few short years after humiliatingly crashing out of Afghanistan. America's pivot to Asia will never happen, just like Michael Corleone could never extricate the family business from its criminal past. The empire has collected too many barnacles. This is the exact opposite of the domino theory. It does not get easier. At some point, foreign entanglements stop benefiting the empire and become, at best, leeches and, at worst, ruinous distractions. The US, bled dry by two decades of never-ending wars, can only pivot to Asia by abandoning the Middle East and Ukraine. But like bickering concubines, manipulative allies conspire for the emperor's favor. In every stable of concubines, there is always a favorite who outmaneuvers the rest and imposes her will on a besotted emperor. America's Wu Zetian just unleashed a surprise attack on Iran demanding the emperor's total attention, leaving beautiful, faithful, innocent and delicate Taiwan to twist in the wind. The US is dependent on China for rare earth elements because rare earth chemistry programs are offered at dozens of Chinese universities versus none in the US. China has produced over 50,000 rare earth patents in the past two decades versus a de minimis number anywhere else. Cutting-edge science in the field is published in a handful of dedicated Chinese rare earth journals. China does not do foreign entanglements. Historically, China expanded organically by incorporating different polities into the Chinese state. That is what makes China China. Unlike maritime empires, the entire purpose of the Chinese state is to harness the major perk of hegemony– not having to waste resources on the military and, instead, deploy them on public works projects, from Yellow River dykes to high-speed rail. In the early 15th century, after commissioning seven magnificent imperial treasure voyages over three decades, reaching as far west as the east coast of Africa and establishing China as the world's pre-eminent seafaring nation, the Ming Dynasty court suddenly turned its back on maritime power. Historians have asked why ever since. Whether it was economics, Confucian conservatism or banal power struggles, abandoning maritime power set China up for European and Japanese predation in the 19th and 20th centuries. In a full accounting of history, maritime empires have not fared much better. Competition for overseas assets led to the slaughter of two World Wars, immolating much of Europe's accumulated wealth. Imperial possessions, acquired over a span of four centuries, evaporated in the blink of a few decades. The reason the US is dependent on China for rare earth elements is because of a maddening inability to concentrate. The US has known of its risky reliance on China for rare earths for two decades. In 2010, China weaponized its rare earth stranglehold on Japan during an East China Sea border dispute. In 2019, after President Trump launched a trade and tech war, China State Television not so subtly broadcast President Xi Jinping's visit to a rare earth processing plant. And somehow, in 2025, China has become an even more dominant supplier of rare earth elements. In all these instances, the exact same narratives were parroted by the English media – rare earths are not actually rare, China dominates rare earth processing because it is polluting, the US transferred rare earth processing technology to China. These shibboleths, which fall apart on close scrutiny, have tied America's hands for two decades. Halfhearted efforts to resolve the problem fell by the wayside when China refrained from pulling the rare earth trigger – until now, in 2025, when China is putting the squeeze on rare earth exports for military use just as strategic competition with the US is entering its most intense phase and right when conflicts in Israel and Ukraine are consuming an inordinate amount of military hardware. Like Michael Corleone, the US tried to convince itself that it was in a different business. 'The Godfather' is a tragedy worthy of – and rhyming with – both 'Macbeth' and 'King Lear.' Michael was blinded by ambition, thought of himself as more than a gangster and ultimately brought ruin onto himself and the Corleone family. The US consciously chose to be a maritime empire, stationing troops in 800 bases across the world, and then convinced itself that it was more than just an extractive empire, above the nitty-gritty, dirty work of resource extraction and immune from manipulation by vassals. Let us hope that this does not end in a Godfather-esque tragedy.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Israel's Bold, Risky Attack
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. At the end of the classic 1972 film The Godfather, the new don of the family, Michael Corleone, attends a baptism while his men wipe out the heads of the other New York mafia families—all of them Michael's enemies, and all intending one day to do him harm. Rather than wait for their eventual attacks, Michael dispatched them himself. 'Today, I settled all family business,' Michael says to his traitorous brother-in-law, before having him killed. Tonight, the Israelis launched a broad, sweeping attack on Iran that seems like an attempt to settle, so to speak, all family business. The Israeli government has characterized this offensive as a 'preemptive' strike on Iran: 'We are now in a strategic window of opportunity and close to a point of no return, and we had no choice but to take action,' an Israeli military official told reporters. Israeli spokespeople suggest that these attacks, named Operation Rising Lion, could go on for weeks. But calling this a 'preemptive' strike is questionable. The Israelis, from what we know so far, are engaged in a preventive war: They are removing the source of a threat by surprise, on their own timetable and on terms they find favorable. They may be justified in doing so, but such actions carry great moral and practical risks. Preemptive attacks, in both international law and the historical traditions of war, are spoiling attacks, meant to thwart an imminent attack. In both tradition and law, this form of self-defense is perfectly defensible, similar to the principle in domestic law that when a person cocks a fist or pulls a gun, the intended victim does not need to stand there and wait to get punched or shot. Preventive attacks, however, have long been viewed in the international community as both illegal and immoral. History is full of ill-advised preventive actions, including the Spartan invasion of Athens in the 5th century B.C., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the American war on Iraq in 2002. Sometimes, such wars are the product of hubris, miscalculation, or plain fear, but they all share the common trait that a choice was made to go to war based on a threat that was real, but not imminent. The Israelis, ironically, are in the case books as the clearest example of a legitimate preemptive attack. In 1967, Israel got the jump on an Arab coalition that had been so obvious in its march to war that it was literally broadcasting its intention to destroy Israel while its troops massed for an offensive. Indeed, international law experts have noted that the 1967 war is so clear that it is not much use as a precedent, because most enemies are not blockheaded enough to assemble an army and declare their intention to invade. (Of course, the Israelis could argue that they are already at war with Iran, a country that has launched many missiles at them and directed years of proxy attacks on their people and their military, which would be a far stronger case.) Most threats, instead, are a judgment call based on timing. What constitutes an imminent threat? The Israelis seem to have made the same judgment with respect to Iran that America made in Iraq: A regime that has expressed genocidal intent is trying to gain nuclear weapons; possession of nuclear weapons will mean, with absolute certainty, use of nuclear weapons; and therefore, waiting until the threat gels and becomes obvious is too dangerous. Such a calculation is not irrational, especially in the nuclear age, when armies no longer need to mobilize for nations to inflict ghastly damage on each other. To show infinite patience until a threat—especially a nuclear threat—becomes so obvious that the window for action shrinks to hours or minutes requires the coldest of cold blood. Few world leaders are willing to take such risks. 'We no longer live in a world,' President John F. Kennedy said presciently during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, 'where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.' But if the Israelis are setting the terms of the debate by claiming that they are embarking on a preemptive war—and not a preventive one—then they will have to make the case to the international community that the threat from the Iranian nuclear program required action now, without any further delay. Jerusalem may well be able to make this argument; if the Iranians were, as the Israelis claim, just a few weeks from assembling a small nuclear arsenal, and the ability to strike that capacity was receding from Israeli reach, then the argument for preemption is strong—especially because Iranian leaders have so often expressed their wish to wipe Israel from the map. That rationale is complicated now by the sweep and breadth of the Israeli offensive. Several senior Iranian leaders, including from the Iranian General Staff, are reportedly dead, which suggests that Israel's goal might be decapitation of the Iranian regime, perhaps with the aim of regime change. If that is the case, then the Israelis should not box themselves in—as the Americans unwisely did in 2002—with shaky rationales about preemption. They should simply admit that they have reached a decision to end, once and for all, the existential threat to Israel from Iran. Iran's history and its unrelenting enmity to Israel could justify such a war. A decade ago, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the 'barbaric, wolflike' and 'infanticidal' Israeli regime has 'no cure but to be annihilated.' The Iranians cannot now complain if the Israelis are taking them seriously; the United States has launched military actions over far weaker threats to American security. But such decisions are laden with immense danger, especially because—as the great student of armed conflict, Carl von Clausewitz, warned long ago—there is no such thing as utter finality in war. The Israeli campaign may be necessary, but so far, it seems less like a preemptive action and more like something that another philosopher of war, Michael Corleone, would easily have recognized. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Israel's Preventive War
At the end of the classic 1972 film The Godfather, the new don of the family, Michael Corleone, attends a baptism while his men wipe out the heads of the other New York mafia families—all of them Michael's enemies, and all intending one day to do him harm. Rather than wait for their eventual attacks, Michael dispatched them himself. 'Today, I settled all family business,' Michael says to his traitorous brother-in-law, before having him killed. Tonight, the Israelis launched a broad sweeping attack on Iran that seems like an attempt to settle, so to speak, all family business. The Israeli government has characterized this offensive as a 'preemptive' strike on Iran: 'We are now in a strategic window of opportunity and close to a point of no return, and we had no choice but to take action,' an Israeli military official told reporters. Israeli spokespeople suggest that these attacks, named Operation Rising Lion, could go on for weeks. But calling this a 'preemptive' strike is questionable. The Israelis, from what we know so far, are engaged in a preventive war: They are removing the source of a threat by surprise, on their own timetable and on terms they find favorable. They may be justified in doing so, but such actions carry great moral and practical risks. Preemptive attacks, in both international law and the historical traditions of war, are spoiling attacks, meant to thwart an imminent attack. In both tradition and law, this form of self-defense is perfectly defensible, similar to the principle in domestic law that when a person cocks a fist or pulls a gun, the intended victim does need to stand there and wait to get punched or shot. Preventive attacks, however, have long been viewed in the international community as both illegal and immoral. History is full of ill-advised preventive actions, including the Spartan invasion of Athens in the 5th century B.C., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the American war on Iraq in 2002. Sometimes, such wars are the product of hubris, miscalculation, or plain fear, but they all share the common trait that a choice was made to go to war based on a threat that was real, but not imminent. The Israelis, ironically, are in the case books as the clearest example of a legitimate preemptive attack. In 1967, Israel got the jump on an Arab coalition that had been so obvious in its march to war that it was literally broadcasting its intention to destroy Israel while its troops massed for an offensive. Indeed, international law experts have noted that the 1967 is so clear that it is not much use as a precedent, because most enemies are not blockheaded enough to assemble an army and declare their intention to invade. (Of course, the Israelis could argue that they are already at war with Iran, a country that has launched many missiles at them and directed years of proxy attacks on their people and their military, which would be a far stronger case.) Most threats, instead, are a judgment call based on timing. What constitutes an imminent threat? The Israelis seem to have made the same judgment with respect to Iran that America made in Iraq: A regime that has expressed genocidal intent is trying to gain nuclear weapons; possession of nuclear weapons will mean, with absolute certainty, use of nuclear weapons; and therefore, waiting until the threat gels and becomes obvious is too dangerous. Such a calculation is not irrational, especially in the nuclear age, when armies no longer need to mobilize for nations to inflict ghastly damage on each other. To show infinite patience until a threat—especially a nuclear threat—becomes so obvious that the window for action shrinks to hours or minutes requires the coldest of cold blood. Few world leaders are willing to take such risks. 'We no longer live in a world,' President John F. Kennedy said presciently during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, 'where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.' But if the Israelis are setting the terms of the debate by claiming that they are embarking on a preemptive war—and not merely a preventative one—then they will have to make the case to the international community that the threat from the Iranian nuclear program required action now, without any further delay. Jerusalem may well be able to make this argument; if the Iranians were, as the Israelis claim, just a few weeks from assembling a small nuclear arsenal, and the ability to strike that capacity was receding from Israeli reach, then the argument for preemption is strong—especially because Iranian leaders have so often expressed their wish to wipe Israel from the map. But that rationale is complicated now by the sweep and breadth of the Israeli offensive. Several senior Iranian leaders, including from the Iranian General Staff, are reportedly dead, which suggests that Israel's goal might be decapitation of the Iranian regime, perhaps with the aim of regime change. If that is the case, then the Israelis should not box themselves in—as the Americans unwisely did in 2002—with shaky rationales about preemption. They should simply admit that they have reached a decision to end, once and for all, the existential threat to Israel from Iran. Iran's history and its unrelenting enmity to Israel could justify such a war. A decade ago, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the 'barbaric, wolflike' and 'infanticidal' Israeli regime has 'no cure but to be annihilated.' The Iranians cannot now complain if the Israelis are taking them seriously; the United States has launched military actions over far weaker threats to American security. But such decisions are laden with immense danger, especially because—as the great student of armed conflict, Carl von Clausewitz, warned long ago—there is no such thing as utter finality in war. The Israeli campaign may be necessary, but so far, it seems less like a preemptive action and more like something that another philosopher of war, Michael Corleone, would easily have recognized.
