The strategy of preemption in U.S. foreign policy

Meer over het boek

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and international terrorism are seen as major threats to global peace in the 21st century. In response, the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy 2002 stated that the U.S. would act preemptively to prevent WMD proliferation and terrorist acquisition. This approach, particularly its application in Iraq in 2003, sparked significant debate about military preemption. Johannes Ziegler argues that only states posing a direct threat to U.S. interests are likely to face preventive military action. Additionally, such strikes are only viable under optimal conditions, as factors like potential casualties and the need for precise intelligence limit their effectiveness. Military force should complement other strategies against WMD proliferation and be a last resort. However, preventive strikes can be most effective when targeting weapons programs in their early stages. In cases where traditional deterrence fails, these strikes may also serve as a "means of first resort." As the threat of WMD proliferation grows, particularly with the Iranian nuclear crisis, understanding the preemption strategy is essential to navigate the complexities surrounding it.