The Iran Strike Dilemma: Was Israel's 'Operation Am Kelavi' a Necessary Act?
The Aftermath of Operation Am Kelavi Puts Spotlight on Dueling Narratives
JERUSALEM – In the wake of Israel’s 'Operation Am Kelavi,' a complex and polarizing picture has emerged on the world stage, igniting a fierce debate over the operation's legality, morality, and strategic consequences. A cascade of events—including high-casualty strikes in both Iran and Gaza, conflicting claims over operational command, and significant international political fallout—has pitted Israeli officials, who defend the action as a necessary act of pre-emptive self-defense, against a chorus of critics and media reports questioning its motives and methods.
At the heart of the schism lies a fundamental disagreement over the nature of the threat posed by Iran and the justification for the Israeli response. The government in Jerusalem frames the operation as the climax of a decades-long shadow war against a regime bent on its annihilation, a last resort taken only when Iran reached a nuclear "point of no return." Conversely, a competing narrative has solidified in major media outlets, portraying the operation as an act of aggression with devastating civilian consequences, politically motivated and strategically questionable.
The Question of Justification: Pre-emption or Aggression?
The legal and moral justification for the operation remains the primary point of contention. Israeli defense officials maintain that the action was not an act of choice but one of existential necessity, grounded in the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. They point to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released just prior to the strikes, which stated Iran possessed sufficient enriched uranium for multiple nuclear devices. An intelligence assessment declassified by the IDF further warned that Tehran was taking “giant leaps towards the ability to weaponize its program.”
“International law does not demand that a nation commit suicide,” a senior Israeli official stated in a briefing. “Waiting for a genocidal regime to possess the weapon of your destruction is not a responsible policy. The threat was no longer theoretical; it was imminent and irreversible.” Proponents of this view highlight that an IAEA Board of Governors condemnation of Iran days before the strike was met not with compliance but with defiance, as Tehran announced the construction of a new enrichment facility. This, they argue, is proof that all diplomatic avenues were exhausted and that Iran was using talks as a “smokescreen.” This position received a degree of international backing, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio noting that Israel “believes this action was necessary for its self-defense.”
However, this framing is sharply contested. Critics, including officials from several nations, have labeled the operation a violation of international law and an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. This narrative has been amplified by reports focusing on the operation as an Israeli-initiated escalation. The Guardian has gone further, reporting a direct link between the timing of the conflict and the postponement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial, suggesting a “wag the dog” scenario where the operation served a domestic political purpose. According to the report, this was facilitated by supportive intervention from the U.S. President, moving the claim from media speculation to a reported event.
Assessing the Impact: Surgical Precision or Civilian Tragedy?
The human cost of the operation has become a visceral and dominant part of the story, challenging Israel’s core message of moral and technical superiority. Israeli military sources have stressed the “surgical precision” of the strikes, releasing a detailed list of high-value military targets they say were successfully destroyed. These include the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant in Natanz, an IRGC airbase in Tabriz, and the command bunkers of top terror leaders. The IDF has presented a list of eliminated senior commanders—including IRGC head General Hossein Salami and aerospace commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh—as proof the operation was focused on decapitating the regime's military leadership, not harming civilians.
“The moral chasm between the sides is undeniable,” an IDF spokesperson said. “We target terror infrastructure and the architects of global instability. In response, Iran launched over 200 missiles indiscriminately into our civilian centers like Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan.”
This narrative of precision has been severely damaged by persistent reporting on civilian casualties. Multiple international news agencies, including Fox News and the Associated Press, have reported a non-combatant death toll of over 70 from an Israeli strike on the Evin Prison complex in Tehran. This has been massively compounded by high-impact coverage from CNN, the BBC, and others on a deadly Israeli strike at the Al-Baqa seaside cafe in Gaza, which reportedly killed dozens of civilians. This ongoing conflict in Gaza continues to act as a powerful “credibility veto,” with reports of strikes on hospital courtyards and the killing of aid seekers creating a pervasive image of indiscriminate force that makes Israeli claims of moral superiority difficult for global audiences to accept.
In response, Israeli officials argue that the casualty figures from Iran originate from the regime’s propaganda ministry and cannot be trusted. They counter that the responsibility for any civilian deaths lies with Iran’s well-documented strategy of embedding its military assets and leadership within civilian populations—a practice they contend is a war crime in itself.
Strategic Execution and Regional Fallout
The narrative of Israeli heroism in “Operation Am Kelavi” has also faced a significant challenge from authoritative U.S. sources. While Israel has portrayed the operation as a unilateral act of courage, top-tier outlets like the AP and a key analysis from CNN’s Brett McGurk have consistently attributed the critical “bunker-busting” strikes against Iran’s most fortified nuclear sites to the United States military. This has effectively supplanted the Israeli narrative of agency and heroism in the media landscape.
Israeli sources have subtly reframed this, describing a “sophisticated joint deception operation” designed to achieve total surprise. They argue this coordinated effort was essential to paralyzing Iran’s command and control, which in turn prevented a much larger, more devastating counter-attack. Supporters of the operation point to a key piece of evidence: intelligence suggesting Iran had planned to launch nearly 1,000 ballistic missiles, but due to the damage inflicted by the IDF on launch sites and command infrastructure, only managed to fire around 200. This, they argue, proves the Israeli action didn’t cause the missile attack but rather blunted its scope by 80%, restoring deterrence and preventing a full-scale regional war.
The long-term regional impact remains equally contested. Israel’s key message that the operation was a “favor” to the Iranian people and would weaken the regime has been directly contradicted by a CBS News report from Tehran. The report claims the conflict has fostered “a level of national unity that wasn't there before,” suggesting the strikes may have backfired by strengthening the regime’s domestic standing. This is bolstered by an international backlash, symbolized by the “Death to the IDF” chant at the Glastonbury Festival, which escalated into a major diplomatic incident involving a UK police investigation and U.S. visa revocations for the band, amplifying extremist rhetoric on a global stage.
As the dust settles, the international community is left to weigh two profoundly different interpretations of the same events. The ultimate judgment hinges on whether one views the operation as a reckless military adventure that caused immense suffering and strengthened an authoritarian regime, or as a bitter but necessary act of defense that, in the words of its planners, prevented a far more dangerous future under the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran.
