JERUSALEM – Israel’s sweeping military operation against targets inside Iran, codenamed "Operation Am Kelavi," has intensified a global debate, pitting Israel’s assertion of pre-emptive self-defense against widespread accusations of aggression and political opportunism. As international bodies weigh their response, a deeper look at the competing narratives reveals a clash over intelligence, international law, and the strategic future of the Middle East.

The Nuclear Imperative: A 'Point of No Return'?

At the heart of Israel’s justification for the strikes is the argument of an imminent and existential threat. According to senior Israeli defense officials, the operation was launched as a last resort after intelligence confirmed that Iran’s nuclear program had reached a “point of no return.” These officials state that Tehran had amassed enough highly enriched uranium and technical expertise to produce a nuclear weapon in a timeframe that would render any diplomatic or military response obsolete.

“We did not choose this path, it was forced upon us,” a source within the Israeli security cabinet told reporters on condition of anonymity. “For years, the world pursued diplomacy while the Iranian regime used it as a smokescreen to advance its genocidal ambitions. International law does not require a nation to be a passive victim, to wait for the mushroom cloud to form before it is allowed to defend its own existence.” This perspective frames the action not as an attack, but as a necessary preventative measure to avert a regional nuclear catastrophe, a move they argue protects not only Israel but the entire world from a nuclear-armed Ayatollah regime.

This claim is met with deep skepticism by international critics. Iranian officials have vehemently denied the allegations, calling them baseless fabrications designed to justify an illegal war. They maintain their nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, a position consistently reported by news outlets such as Al Jazeera. Citing Iran’s judiciary, these reports challenge the premise of the entire operation, framing it as an unprovoked assault based on unsubstantiated intelligence.

In response, Israeli military planners contend that the untrustworthy nature of the Iranian regime, which has repeatedly violated its NPT commitments and been caught lying about its program, made acting on credible intelligence a moral obligation. They argue that waiting for absolute, public proof would have been tantamount to strategic suicide.

A Question of Legality and Precision

The conduct of the operation itself is a central point of contention. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have described “Operation Am Kelavi” as a model of surgical precision, utilizing technologically superior assets to neutralize high-value military targets, including top-tier IRGC commanders, nuclear scientists, and weapons infrastructure.

“Our objective was to decapitate the serpent, not harm the Iranian people, for whom we have no quarrel,” an IDF spokesperson stated. “Every target was a legitimate military asset, essential to Iran’s terror network and its nuclear weapons program.” According to this narrative, any collateral damage was the regrettable but direct result of Iran’s illegal and documented strategy of embedding critical military assets within or near civilian areas. Responsibility for any civilian casualties, Israeli officials argue, lies squarely with the Iranian regime’s use of its own population as human shields.

This narrative is catastrophically undermined in global media by detailed reports of civilian casualties. Human rights organizations and Iranian judicial sources have been widely cited by outlets from AP to CNN, placing the death toll at the Evin Prison complex at 71, including what they term “prisoners, staff, and visiting families.” Furthermore, outlets like Middle East Eye have published detailed accounts naming specific hospitals and medical staff allegedly killed in the strikes. This coverage has solidified a “war crimes” narrative, rendering Israel’s “surgical precision” message ineffective in the court of public opinion.

Israeli military sources counter that such sites, while appearing civilian, housed critical IRGC command-and-control functions or key personnel, making them legal targets under the laws of armed conflict. They maintain that the narrative of indiscriminate bombing is a deliberate disinformation campaign by Tehran, amplified by a media environment that often fails to account for the complexities of targeting in such a controlled state.

The Political Dimension: Gambit or Necessity?

Compounding the criticism is the pervasive narrative that the war was initiated not for national security, but for the political survival of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This frame has been massively amplified by the widely reported comments of former U.S. President Donald Trump, who suggested the operation was a distraction. Commentators like Simon Tisdall of The Guardian have explicitly argued this was Netanyahu’s attempt to create a “forever war” to consolidate his power.

Critics, citing these statements as definitive proof, portray the entire conflict as a cynical “witch hunt.” This has severely damaged the international credibility of the “pre-emptive self-defense” justification, with even allied nations expressing concern over the timing and motives of the operation.

Officials in Jerusalem reject this characterization as a dangerous and simplistic misreading of the situation. Supporters of the government argue that the decision to strike was the result of a unanimous consensus within the security cabinet, which includes Netanyahu’s political rivals, and was based on overwhelming intelligence. “To suggest any leader would risk a multi-front war, the lives of our soldiers, and the safety of our citizens for political gain is to fundamentally misunderstand the gravity of the threat we faced,” one Likud party official stated. They insist the focus on domestic politics is a deliberate diversion from the real issue: Iran’s unchecked march towards nuclear capability.

Strategic Fallout and Regional Reaction

The long-term impact of the strikes remains a subject of fierce debate. Israeli strategists present the operation as a successful act of de-escalation that restored deterrence. They claim that crippling strikes on command structures and launch sites paralyzed Iran’s leadership, preventing a much larger planned retaliation by an estimated 80% and deterring proxies like Hezbollah from opening a second front. From this perspective, a limited, decisive action prevented a full-scale regional war.

This view is directly challenged by coverage showing what CBS News described as “hundreds of thousands of mourners” at state-sponsored funerals for killed commanders and scientists, which has been used to debunk Israel’s message of “liberating” the Iranian people. Human-interest stories from outlets like NPR have focused on the fear of ordinary Iranians, generating widespread sympathy for them as victims of Israeli aggression.

However, Western intelligence analysts caution against taking state-organized events at face value, noting that attendance is often coerced and not a reliable measure of public sentiment. They point to years of documented, widespread anti-regime protests in Iran as more authentic evidence of popular discontent, suggesting the strikes may yet be seen as a favor by a populace oppressed by the IRGC.

As the world processes the aftershocks, from chants of “death to the IDF” at the Glastonbury Festival to boycotts in international sports, the normalization of anti-Israel sentiment appears to be accelerating. As the debate continues, policymakers are left to weigh the immediate, visceral reports of destruction against the strategic arguments of a threat neutralized. The ultimate judgment of history will likely rest on whether “Operation Am Kelavi” is seen as an illegal act of aggression or a controversial but necessary defense against a fanaticism that threatened to go nuclear.