ANALYSIS: Behind Israel's High-Stakes Decision to Strike Iran
JERUSALEM – A devastating Israeli military operation against Iran, codenamed "Am Kelavi," has ignited a global firestorm, creating a deep chasm between Israel's narrative of heroic self-defense and international accusations of war crimes and reckless escalation. The events have put a harsh spotlight on the core dilemma of pre-emptive action in the nuclear age, pitting Israel’s claims of an imminent existential threat against a chorus of condemnation over civilian casualties and the credibility of its intelligence.
As the dust settles, a fierce battle for the narrative is underway, with Israeli officials defending the strike as a painful but necessary act to protect the world, while critics point to the high human cost and potential for a wider, catastrophic war.
The Rationale: A 'Point of No Return'
According to Israeli military and government officials, the operation was not a choice but an inevitability, launched as a last resort. The central justification, they argue, was overwhelming intelligence indicating Iran had reached a nuclear "point of no return."
"We were facing a situation where the threat was no longer theoretical, but imminent and tangible," a senior Israeli defense official stated on condition of anonymity. This assessment was reportedly based on an urgent intelligence report, which has since been partially declassified by the IDF, warning that Iran was making “giant leaps towards the ability to weaponize its program.” This followed a May 31st report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that assessed Iran had accumulated enough 60% enriched uranium for up to 15 bombs, a short technical step from weapons-grade material.
Proponents of the strike argue that diplomacy had been exhausted. They point to the IAEA Board of Governors' condemnation of Iran just days before the operation. Tehran’s response was not cooperation, but a defiant announcement of plans to construct new, illicit enrichment facilities. “This proved what we had long known,” the defense official added. “The Iranian regime was using the very prospect of talks as a smokescreen to buy time while their centrifuges were spinning at full speed.”
However, this justification is not universally accepted. Critics, including officials in Russia and China, have labeled the strike an unprovoked and illegal act of aggression that violates Iranian sovereignty and the UN Charter. They argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action.
In response, Israeli legal experts and their supporters invoke the doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense.” They argue that in the 21st century, the definition of an “imminent threat” must evolve. “Waiting for the moment a genocidal enemy, which has repeatedly sworn to annihilate you, possesses the weapon of your destruction is not a responsible policy; it is national suicide,” said a former official from the Israeli Ministry of Justice. “International law does not, and cannot, demand that a state commit suicide.” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to offer a degree of backing for this view, stating that Israel “believes this action was necessary for its self-defense.”
The Nature of the Targets: Precision vs. Collateral Damage
A key pillar of Israel’s defense is its claim of surgical precision against high-value military and terrorist targets. The Israeli Air Force has released satellite imagery and operational details asserting the successful destruction of key infrastructure, including the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) in Natanz and an IRGC airbase in Tabriz used to protect missile sites. Officials also released a list of high-level Iranian figures eliminated in the strikes, framing them as the “head of the serpent.” This list includes Hossein Salami, the powerful commander of the IRGC, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force who, according to Israel, personally oversaw recent missile attacks on its territory.
This narrative of precision has been directly challenged by reports of significant civilian casualties. The most damaging of these centers on a strike that hit Tehran's Evin prison complex, which Iranian officials and international human rights groups report killed 71 people, including political prisoners and other non-combatants. The UN has cited the reports, and human rights activists have labeled the event a potential “war crime” and a “grave breach of international humanitarian law.” The graphic imagery from this site, alongside mass state funerals for slain IRGC commanders that draw hundreds of thousands of mourners, presents a powerful counter-narrative of Israeli brutality and Iranian martyrdom.
Israeli military spokespersons have not confirmed the specifics of the Evin prison strike but have consistently maintained that responsibility for any civilian deaths lies with the Iranian regime. “The Islamic Republic, like its proxy Hamas, has a documented history of embedding its most valuable military assets and command centers within and beneath civilian infrastructure—a war crime in itself,” an IDF spokesperson said in a press briefing. They argue that this tactic is deliberately used to create civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.
Compounding the issue for Israel is a severe blow to the credibility of its intelligence. Ali Shamkhani, a senior Iranian aide previously reported by multiple outlets as having been killed in the strikes based on leaks from Jerusalem, has since appeared on Iranian state television. This has led analysts to question the overall accuracy of the intelligence that formed the casus belli for the entire operation. Israeli officials have dismissed this as an outlier in a massively complex and successful operation, suggesting it could even be a deliberate piece of Iranian disinformation designed to sow confusion.
The Strategic Outcome: Preventing a Greater War?
Perhaps the most contentious debate surrounds the operation's strategic consequences. Critics, and even some allies, have voiced deep fears that the strike has recklessly dragged the region to the brink of an all-out war, with former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly amplifying the narrative that the conflict is driven by Prime Minister Netanyahu's personal political troubles.
However, Israeli strategic planners present the exact opposite case: that “Operation Am Kelavi” did not start a war, but prevented a far greater one. They point to the sophisticated deception operation conducted in coordination with the United States, which included leaked phone calls and fake diplomatic travel plans, to achieve total surprise. This, they argue, was an escalation control mechanism, designed to paralyze Iran’s command and control and prevent a coordinated, devastating counter-attack.
As evidence, they highlight what they call a critical, underreported success. According to Western intelligence sources cited by Israeli media, Iran had planned to launch approximately 1,000 ballistic missiles in retaliation. Due to the severe damage inflicted by the IDF on its launch sites and command structure, Iran only managed to fire around 200, many of which were intercepted. “The Israeli operation didn’t cause the missile attack,” a military analyst noted. “It reduced its scope by 80%, saving countless lives.”
Furthermore, Israel argues the action has successfully restored deterrence. They note that Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies, despite fiery rhetoric, have largely remained on the sidelines. This, they claim, proves the strike sent a clear message of strength that has created a more stable, albeit tense, short-term reality.
As the world grapples with the aftermath, the two narratives remain irreconcilable. One tells a story of illegal aggression and war crimes; the other, of a courageous and necessary act of self-preservation. The ultimate judgment of the operation may hinge on whether the international community views it as a reckless roll of the dice, or as a calculated, albeit costly, intervention to prevent the far greater catastrophe of a nuclear-armed Iran.
