Are you suggesting that the Hart/Ruddman report is what is driving foreign policy? Are you aware that the administration dismissed that report in its entirety before 9/11? The fact that the word “preemption” is in the report does not support in any way your position that that is where the modern doctrine originated. I’ll give you a hint, it was about a decade earlier and Hart and Ruddman had nothing to do with it.
You can spin it to say that the Bush Administration dismissed Hart-Ruddman but the the reality is that they, like all of Washington, the media, and the public, ignored it. The Bush Administration knew that pre-9/11 implementaion of HR would be impossible and a political hot potato, a loser for whoever pushed it. In fact, they ignored HR even after 9/11, waiting for momentum in Congress. Then, preempting Lieberman, they got out in front of it to shape it as they saw fit.
Instead of hints, you might try links. As it has been pointed out on this thread, there is a long world history of preemption, and by definition, that would include interdiction.