Begin, 1981 vs. Netanyahu, 2025: Similar, Yet Different

Two Israeli airstrikes on nuclear facilities in hostile nations. On the surface, they echo one another. In substance, they reveal striking contrasts in leadership, public sentiment, and global response.

In June 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin authorized the destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. The bold action—Operation Opera—was intended to neutralize an existential threat before it fully materialized. Alongside his landmark peace treaty with Egypt, the strike solidified Begin’s place in history. Yet at the time, it was met with fierce criticism both domestically and abroad.

Begin ordered the strike amid one of Israel’s most tumultuous election campaigns. Critics, including then-opposition leader Shimon Peres, accused him of manipulating national security for political gain. Israel’s media was unrelenting. The political, military, and academic elite largely condemned the operation—even after its operational success.

The international community reacted with harsh condemnation. The Dutch called the strike “terrible.” Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky denounced it as “jungle law.” The United Nations labeled it a “grave breach of international law,” and the US—even under pro-Israel President Ronald Reagan—opposed the action, imposing sanctions and supporting UN Security Council Resolution 487. West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt went so far as to say, “Israel has placed itself outside the law.”

Now fast forward to 2025. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—embroiled in corruption trials, boycotted by wide swaths of the Israeli public, and scorned by much of the media—ordered a preemptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. And yet, unlike Begin in 1981, Netanyahu is receiving widespread support both at home and abroad.

The Israeli press, often critical of Netanyahu, is largely unified in its support. Television networks that once called for his resignation now rally behind the Prime Minister. Even center-left Zionist opposition leaders have lent their backing, recognizing the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. After the trauma of Israel’s security failures in October 2023, a new consensus has emerged.

The international response also stands in stark contrast to 1981. US President Donald Trump has expedited weapons deliveries and reiterated that “Iran must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz strongly defended Israel’s actions, declaring that “Israel has the right to defend its existence and the safety of its citizens,” adding that “Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer echoed Merz’s remarks, affirming Israel’s right to self-defense.

What once brought condemnation now brings commendation. Begin, the peacemaker, was vilified. Netanyahu, the embattled veteran, is supported. Global opinion, once uniformly critical, now recognizes the shared threat posed by nuclear proliferation in hostile regimes.

Both leaders acted on the conviction that inaction would be catastrophic. Yet the political and diplomatic ecosystems surrounding their decisions are worlds apart.

In 1981, Israel stood alone. In 2025, it leads the way. The same act—a preemptive strike—now draws praise instead of punishment. History does not repeat itself; it adapts, evolves, and occasionally, reverses course.