The Case for a Preventive Doctrine: Confronting Ideological Regimes Before It’s Too Late

In an increasingly volatile international landscape, the question of how the world should respond to ideologically driven regimes pursuing weapons of mass destruction has become a matter of existential urgency. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While some argue for continued diplomacy and containment, others - particularly in Israel and among those with lived experience under radical theocratic systems - see this as dangerously naïve. The time has come to seriously reevaluate the validity and moral imperative of a preventive doctrine: the notion that it is not only lawful but necessary to act preemptively against regimes that demonstrate both capacity and intent to upend global security norms through ideology-fueled aggression.

Iran's uranium enrichment to 60%, as confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is not an ambiguous milestone. It is a critical threshold on the path to weapons-grade uranium, with nuclear experts widely acknowledging that the technical leap from 60% to 90% enrichment - required for an effective nuclear bomb - is minimal. While Iran insists that its program remains peaceful, its continued progress, combined with its refusal to fully cooperate with international inspections and safeguards, has raised legitimate fears. Critics of preemptive action often suggest that Iran has not technically violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But legalistic arguments miss the broader point: intentions matter as much as capabilities. The enrichment levels achieved, the concealment of past activities, and the regime’s revolutionary ideology all point to a dangerous convergence of motive and means.

The argument that Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union or even North Korea rests on a flawed assumption - that all state actors behave rationally according to Western definitions of rationality. But not all regimes are created equal. Some operate under ideological imperatives that prioritize martyrdom, divine prophecy, or eternal struggle over national survival or economic prosperity. Iran’s behavior during the Iran-Iraq War is a striking case in point. Despite horrific casualties and the opportunity for a negotiated end, Ayatollah Khomeini prolonged the war for years, ultimately stating that accepting peace was like “drinking poison.” The Islamic Republic mobilized tens of thousands of teenagers in human wave attacks, sending them into minefields with plastic keys to paradise around their necks. This was not military strategy - it was ideological zealotry overriding all conventional logic.

This same ethos animates Iran's regional proxies. Hamas, for example, routinely fired rockets at Israeli population centers knowing full well that the retaliation will devastate Gaza. This is not deterrable behavior - it is symbolic warfare rooted in a theology of resistance and sacrifice. That ideology exploded into full barbarism on October 7th, 2023, when Hamas launched a coordinated and unprecedented attack on southern Israel, massacring over 1,200 civilians in their homes, at a music festival, and even in shelters. The horror of the attack - beheadings, rapes, and the taking of hostages including women, children, and the elderly - shocked the world. It stripped away any remaining illusion about the nature of Hamas and, by extension, the ideology and backers that empower it. The Israeli response was overwhelming: the complete military dismantling of Hamas infrastructure in Gaza. While civilians tragically suffered, the responsibility lay squarely with those who embedded military assets among them and viewed death - civilian or otherwise - as a strategic tool.

Hezbollah, entrenched within Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, similarly provoked a war with Israel in 2006, and continued to pursue confrontation regardless of catastrophic consequences for the Lebanese people. The Houthis in Yemen, funded and armed by Iran, chant “Death to America, Death to Israel” while targeting civilian infrastructure across borders, showing a similar disregard for proportionality or restraint.

Some critics argue that Iran, despite its ideology, has historically avoided outright war with major powers and thus remains a rational actor. But rationality is relative. If a regime's guiding ideology places spiritual or eschatological victory above material or political survival, then it operates on an entirely different logic. Deterrence assumes that mutual destruction is an unacceptable outcome. But what if one side embraces martyrdom? What if death is not a deterrent but a gateway to glory? Revolutionary Shiite doctrine contains elements of apocalyptic belief, particularly among hardline factions, that see the return of the Mahdi (the hidden Imam) as a transformative event potentially hastened by chaos and conflict. This is not the logic of containment - it is a theological rationale for confrontation.

Having grown up partly in a Shiite theocratic society, I have seen firsthand how such belief systems can warp behavior, particularly among the youth who are fed a steady diet of martyrdom and enemy demonization. It is one thing to debate abstract theories in think tanks; it is quite another to witness children being indoctrinated into viewing death in battle as the highest good. The West often fails to grasp this cultural and psychological dynamic, applying frameworks of diplomacy and mutual interest that may be entirely alien to the ideological actors in question.

Israel’s security doctrine, known as the Begin Doctrine, is rooted in precisely this understanding. It holds that no hostile regime in the Middle East should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. This doctrine was operationalized in 1981 with the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and again in 2007 with the destruction of a clandestine Syrian nuclear facility. Both missions were internationally controversial but historically vindicated. In contrast, the Iranian case has dragged on for decades, with negotiations failing to produce verifiable and lasting limits. Time is no longer a luxury. The technical barriers to 90% enrichment are low, and once crossed, Iran could become a nuclear threshold state with breakout capability. The window to prevent this is narrowing fast.

Recent events have dramatically underscored this urgency. A few days ago, Israel launched strategic strikes deep into Iranian territory, targeting command-and-control centers, IRGC infrastructure, top military brass and components of Iran’s nuclear development network. These precise actions demonstrate not only Israel’s resolve but also its military superiority. Iran, despite knowing it cannot match Israel in conventional warfare, continues to fire ballistic missiles in response. The futility of these retaliations is glaring. Yet they persist, not out of strategic calculation, but because the regime’s ideological DNA compels it to respond with defiance. Paradoxically, every missile launch and ineffective provocation only galvanized Israel and the broader free world to ensure the end of the Mullah regime. Iran’s leadership, it seems, is marching toward its own destruction not despite its beliefs - but because of them.

Preemption is not about paranoia - it is about prudence. When ideological regimes signal their intentions clearly, arm themselves accordingly, and exhibit a pattern of irrational sacrifice and aggression, the burden is not on others to wait for catastrophe. The burden is on the international community to act. Waiting until Iran tests a bomb would be a failure of imagination and responsibility. The doctrine of preventive action is not merely lawful under evolving interpretations of international self-defense - it is morally necessary when facing actors for whom deterrence has limited meaning and death may not be the worst outcome.

In a world where nuclear weapons meet religious absolutism, the calculus must change. Israel, and by extension the free world, cannot afford to wait for the final proof. History has taught us that some warnings, when ignored, become eulogies. A preventive doctrine, far from being reckless, may be the last rational option left.