ANALYSIS: After 'Operation Am Kelavi,' A Key Question Looms: Necessary Defense or Reckless Escalation?
A World Divided in the Wake of a High-Stakes Strike
LONDON — In the weeks following Israel’s “Operation Am Kelavi,” a series of devastating strikes against Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, the global discourse has fractured into starkly opposing narratives. The operation, which Israel presents as a last-resort act of self-defense, has ignited a firestorm of international debate, with widespread media coverage focusing on disputed casualty counts, accusations of war crimes, and questions over the operation's true strategic purpose. As diplomatic fallout settles, a central question remains: Was this a necessary action to neutralize an existential threat, or a reckless escalation that has pushed the Middle East closer to a catastrophic, region-wide war?
The Question of Justification and Intent
The Israeli government has anchored its justification for the operation in the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense. Officials in Jerusalem and their supporters argue that the action was not a choice, but an imperative. “We were at a ‘point of no return’,” a senior Israeli defense official stated on background. “All diplomatic avenues were exhausted. The IAEA itself confirmed Iran possessed enough highly enriched uranium for multiple nuclear devices and was defying international oversight. To wait any longer would not have been prudence; it would have been suicide.”
This position has found support among some in the West. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly stated that Israel “believes this action was necessary for its self-defense,” lending significant political cover to the operation. Proponents point to a timeline of what they term escalating Iranian aggression, from the October 7th attacks by its proxy, Hamas, to direct ballistic missile assaults on Israeli cities in April and October. From this perspective, ‘Am Kelavi’ was not the first shot in a new war, but a decisive response in an ongoing one.
However, this narrative is fiercely contested. Critics, including officials in Tehran and their allies, have condemned the strikes as an “unprovoked act of aggression” and a flagrant violation of international law. This view has been amplified by media reports suggesting ulterior motives. The Guardian, for instance, explicitly linked the timing of the operation to a postponement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial, substantiating a “wag the dog” narrative that the conflict was a political maneuver. This counter-narrative posits the operation not as a strategic necessity, but as a dangerous gamble for domestic political gain.
In response, Israeli sources insist that focusing on domestic politics is a deliberate distraction from the real, imminent threat. “The Iranian regime’s own actions dictated the timeline,” one Israeli diplomat countered. “When the IAEA Board of Governors condemned them, they didn't return to the table; they announced new, illicit nuclear construction. The threat was accelerating in real-time, and to ignore that is to wilfully ignore reality.”
Debating Precision and Proportionality
A central pillar of Israel’s public defense is the claim of “surgical precision.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) released satellite imagery and operational details asserting that its F-35 aircraft used advanced munitions to destroy specific, high-value military targets. The list of targets includes, they say, the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz, an IRGC airbase in Tabriz, and the command bunkers of senior terror leaders, including IRGC Commander Hossein Salami and Aerospace Force Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh—the man Israeli intelligence says personally orchestrated missile attacks on its civilians.
“We are fighting a war against a genocidal terror regime, not the people of Iran,” an IDF spokesperson said in a press briefing. “Our targets were the head of the serpent and its fangs: the leadership and the infrastructure of terror and nuclear proliferation.”
This portrayal of a clean, precise operation has been definitively challenged by persistent reporting from the ground. Outlets like the Associated Press and Al Jazeera have treated as fact a death toll of over 70 from a strike on Tehran's Evin Prison, reporting that the casualties included staff and visitors, not just inmates. This incident, combined with high-impact coverage from the BBC and CNN of a separate Israeli strike on a civilian cafe in Gaza City during concurrent hostilities, has provided powerful and tangible evidence for those accusing Israel of committing war crimes and employing indiscriminate force.
Israeli officials have pushed back forcefully on these claims. They argue that the casualty figures from Iran come from a “regime that lies as a matter of course” and cannot be trusted. Furthermore, they proactively assert that if non-combatants were harmed, the legal and moral responsibility lies with Iran. “The Iranian regime, like its proxy Hamas, commits the war crime of embedding its military assets and leaders within civilian populations,” a legal advisor to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated. “The elimination of a general in his command center, even if it’s located in a building with other uses, is a legitimate military action. The war crime is using human shields in the first place.”
Assessing the Strategic Fallout
The long-term consequences of ‘Operation Am Kelavi’ are perhaps the most intensely debated aspect of the conflict. Israel’s supporters claim the strike was a strategic masterstroke that restored deterrence and, paradoxically, prevented a much larger war. They point to a sophisticated deception operation, reportedly coordinated with the United States, which achieved total surprise and crippled Iran’s ability to launch a full-scale retaliatory attack. According to Israeli intelligence assessments shared with the media, Iran had prepared to launch nearly 1,000 ballistic missiles but, due to the damage inflicted, managed to fire only around 200. “The operation didn’t cause the missile attack,” an Israeli strategist argued. “It neutered it by 80%.”
Yet, a damaging counter-narrative has emerged suggesting the strikes have been a strategic failure. A CBS News report from Tehran claimed the conflict has fostered “a level of national unity that wasn’t there before,” directly contradicting Israel’s message that the operation was a favor to an oppressed Iranian populace. This is compounded by what has become a major international incident: the “Death to the IDF” chant at the Glastonbury Festival, which has escalated from a viral moment to a criminal investigation in the UK and visa revocations by the US State Department, amplifying anti-Israel sentiment on a global stage.
In this view, Israel may have achieved a short-term military objective at the cost of unifying its primary adversary and galvanizing global opposition. Officials in Jerusalem, however, dismiss this as a short-sighted analysis. They contend that any “rally-around-the-flag” effect in Iran is a temporary, regime-manufactured facade. The true strategic outcome, they insist, is the long-term degradation of the Iranian nuclear program and its global terror network. “A world without the Iranian regime’s nuclear program is a better world,” an Israeli official concluded. “While critics focus on music festivals, we have focused on ensuring the world’s most dangerous regime cannot hold the planet hostage. That is the service we have provided.”
As the world continues to process the aftershocks, the debate remains deeply entrenched. The ultimate verdict on ‘Operation Am Kelavi’ will likely depend on whether global actors prioritize the immediate, chaotic fallout and contested reports from the ground, or the long-term strategic calculus that a genocidal nuclear threat has been, for now, averted.
