The world may never fully grasp the magnitude of the debt it owes to Israel if it succeeds in neutralising Iran’s nuclear threat. That is the paradox of preemption: its very success conceals the scale of the danger it prevented. In taking decisive action against a regime armed with ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads not only to Israel and the region but to Europe and, in time, the US, the Jewish state is shouldering a burden that should never have fallen on it alone.
In what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described in the early hours of Friday morning as “only the beginning”, some 200 Israeli fighter jets took part in attacks on nuclear and military facilities, as well as on senior figures within Iran’s military and nuclear programmes. The strikes, expected to continue for days, represent a bold and high-stakes attempt to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities before they become irreversible. Early reports suggest significant successes – and at a critical moment.
Just two days earlier, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth delivered a chilling assessment before Congress that received far too little attention. Asked whether Iran was attempting to build a nuclear weapon, he replied: “There are plenty of indications that they have been moving their way towards something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.” That warning came on the heels of a damning IAEA report revealing that Iran now possesses enough enriched uranium to produce nine nuclear bombs if further refined. Tehran is not only accelerating enrichment but concealing nuclear activities and systematically obstructing inspectors. The findings were so serious they triggered an unprecedented vote of censure by the IAEA Board of Governors.
Israel’s offensive followed exhaustive diplomatic efforts and clear warnings. President Trump had given Iran 60 days to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Tehran refused to budge. On day 61, the missiles flew. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio maintained that the US was not directly involved, it is inconceivable that a mission of this scale occurred without deep coordination with Washington. Trump has already pledged to defend Israel in the event of retaliation, while pointedly leaving the door open to diplomacy. Having now witnessed both Israel’s operational reach and America’s backing, the regime’s leadership may finally grasp that the cost of continuing its nuclear pursuit could be its own survival – and return to talks.
No one can yet predict how this confrontation will unfold. Does Israel have the capacity to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure entirely? Will the US be drawn into direct conflict? Iran has already launched hundreds of drones, intercepted successfully, but could escalate further with ballistic missiles, as it has in the past. Will it activate proxies in Iraq or Yemen, particularly if Hezbollah is too weakened to respond?
What is certain is that Israel is bracing for the worst. Netanyahu has warned of extended periods in shelters.
But one thing must now be clear to every serious government in the West: Israel needs and deserves the full diplomatic and security backing of its allies, and most urgently from the UK. This is not a border skirmish. It is an existential war against a genocidal regime that seemed to have been perilously close to acquiring the means to act on its threats. This is not the time for the usual bromides about “de-escalation” after decades of Iranian escalation, terrorism, and nuclear brinkmanship.
Yet, regrettably, that was precisely the first instinct of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy – issuing calls for restraint, as if diplomacy hadn’t already been exhaustively tried to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. By contrast, France’s Foreign Minister, while also expressing concern over escalation, at least acknowledged the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear programme and affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence. Still, these reflexive responses are nothing new.
This is not the first time that Israel has changed the course of history for the better – only to be met with rebuke. In 1981, Israeli jets destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. At the time, even the Israel-friendly Reagan administration reacted with outrage. Two decades later, the US quietly acknowledged that a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would have been a global disaster.
In 2007, Israel conducted a covert strike on a secret Syrian nuclear facility. One hardly needs to imagine what danger a nuclear-armed Assad — or jihadi groups who might have seized such weapons during Syria’s civil war — would have posed to global security.
And now, once again, Israel may have done the world an incalculable service. Much of that world will, predictably, rush to condemn it. That is the fate of those who act before catastrophe strikes – especially when those who act are Israeli.
