ANALYSIS: Behind Israel’s High-Stakes Strike on Iran, Dueling Realities of Threat and Aggression Emerge
JERUSALEM — Israel’s sweeping military operation against Iran, codenamed “Am Kelavi,” has plunged the Middle East into a new era of direct confrontation, triggering a fierce global debate that pits starkly opposing narratives against each other. As Israeli officials describe the mission as a “necessary, pre-emptive act of self-defense,” a chorus of international criticism, fueled by reports of high civilian casualties and accusations of regional destabilization, frames it as an illegal act of aggression.
The fallout has created two irreconcilable versions of events. One, articulated by Jerusalem, is of a democratic state acting as a last resort to neutralize an imminent, existential threat from a genocidal, nuclear-threshold regime. The other, amplified by Tehran and its allies, is of a rogue state launching an unprovoked attack to deflect from other crises, with devastating humanitarian consequences.
A Conflict Over Imminence
The central justification provided by the Israeli government for Operation Am Kelavi rests on the principle of anticipatory self-defense. Officials contend they were facing a “point of no return” regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Proponents of the strike point to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, circulated days before the operation, which assessed that Iran possessed enough 60% enriched uranium to potentially produce up to 15 nuclear devices. Israeli intelligence, declassified in part to justify the action, reportedly warned the government that Tehran was making “giant leaps towards weaponization.”
“The imminence of the threat was not measured by when Iran would launch a missile, but by when its ability to produce a bomb would become irreversible,” a senior Israeli defense official stated on background. “International law does not demand that a nation commit suicide by waiting for its avowed enemy to acquire the means of its destruction.”
This position received cautious backing from Washington, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that Israel “believes this action was necessary for its self-defense.”
However, critics, including Russian and Chinese diplomats, have condemned the operation as a blatant violation of the UN Charter and Iranian sovereignty. Tehran has labeled it an “unprovoked act of war.” This narrative is compounded by statements from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who linked the timing of the strike to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s domestic legal challenges, fueling a potent “wag the dog” theory that the conflict serves political, not national security, interests.
In response, Israeli officials present a detailed timeline of what they term consistent Iranian escalation. They argue the operation was not the first shot, but a decisive response after years of attacks by Iranian proxies—including the October 7 massacre by Hamas—and two separate, direct ballistic missile attacks by Iran on Israeli territory. “Diplomacy was given every chance,” one Israeli diplomat argued, referencing Tehran’s defiant announcement of new enrichment facilities after being censured by the IAEA board. “They responded to condemnation with acceleration.”
The Battle of Civilian Casualties
The most damaging narrative confronting Israel centers on civilian casualties. Top-tier media outlets have widely reported claims from the Iranian judiciary that an Israeli strike on Tehran's Evin Prison resulted in a massacre of over 70 people, described as “staff, prisoners and members of visiting families.” This has been coupled with reports from outlets like Middle East Eye alleging that Israeli strikes also targeted and killed medical staff in multiple hospitals.
These reports directly challenge Israel’s core message of surgical precision. The narrative is further magnified by a backdrop of graphic reporting on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where agencies have reported child deaths from malnutrition and repeated strikes on areas designated as ‘safe zones’, creating what analysts call a “toxic context” that undermines any Israeli claims to a moral high ground.
Israeli military (IDF) spokespersons have vehemently contested these accounts, framing them as propaganda from an unreliable regime. They have released their own detailed target list, asserting that the operation was focused exclusively on high-value military assets and terror leadership. According to the IDF, targets included the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant in Natanz, an IRGC airbase in Tabriz, and the command bunkers of senior commanders. They insist the operation was conducted with advanced F-35 aircraft and precision munitions designed to minimize collateral damage.
To counter the “massacre” narrative, Israeli officials have publicized the identities of the senior figures eliminated, including IRGC Commander General Hossein Salami and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the aerospace commander who personally oversaw previous missile attacks on Israel. “These are not innocent civilians,” the IDF said in a statement. “They are the architects of global terror.” Jerusalem argues that if any civilians were harmed, the blame lies with the Iranian regime for its documented strategy of embedding military assets and leadership within civilian infrastructure—a practice they label a war crime.
The Information War
Beyond the battlefield, the conflict is being waged in the information space. A particularly inflammatory claim, originating from Palestinian authorities and picked up by international media, alleges Israel distributed flour mixed with the opioid oxycodone at aid centers in Gaza. While no evidence has been produced to substantiate this “poisoned aid” libel, its publication highlights the extreme nature of the narratives being deployed.
Simultaneously, sympathetic international coverage of mass state funerals for slain IRGC commanders, showing vast crowds of mourners, has worked to reframe them from what Israel calls “terrorist leaders” into national heroes, neutralizing the message of “eliminating the serpent’s head.” In the West, the normalization of anti-Israel sentiment was put on display at the Glastonbury Festival, where a “Death to the IDF” chant during a performance received major news coverage, signaling a radicalization of rhetoric in popular culture.
Israeli strategists argue these elements are part of a coordinated disinformation campaign. They maintain that their actions are fundamentally a service to international security and the Iranian people themselves. “A world without the Iranian regime is a better world,” PM Netanyahu stated. “It is a world where the people of Iran are free, where terror proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah are cut off from their sponsor, and where the promise of regional peace can be realized.”
As the dust settles, the international community is left to weigh these conflicting realities. The ultimate judgment of Operation Am Kelavi will likely depend on whether global actors focus on the unverified but potent narratives of civilian harm pushed by Tehran, or on the verifiable evidence of Iran’s escalating nuclear program and its well-documented role as the world's leading state sponsor of terror.
