Israel at the Iranian Nuclear Threshold

In the early hours of June 13, 2025, a significant turning point emerged in the regional strategic balance of the Middle East. The Israeli Air Force conducted an incursion into Iranian airspace, executing a precision operation targeting nuclear facilities that had been identified as critical by multiple intelligence agencies. This event, beyond its tactical implications, reaffirms an essential principle that the contemporary international system often overlooks: security cannot be delegated. When confronted with a concrete and imminent threat, the responsibility to safeguard national existence necessitates immediate action, eschewing delays, perfunctory consultations, and the reliance on multilateral mechanisms that have historically demonstrated ineffectiveness.

The decision taken by the State of Israel does not reflect impulsive voluntarism or a reckless geopolitical gamble. It fits squarely within the legal framework provided by International Law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter explicitly states that nothing

“shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.

Both legal doctrine and state practice have interpreted this provision as extending to situations in which aggression, though not yet materialized, is imminent, verifiable, and likely to cause irreparable harm. Within this context, the Israeli operation was not only legally defensible; it was, by all standards, required.

The threat in question is both tangible and pressing. The Iranian regime, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has knowingly crossed the technical threshold that transforms a civilian nuclear program into a military one. A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, cited by Reuters on June 10, 2025, indicates that Tehran had sufficient highly enriched uranium to build at least fifteen nuclear warheads and has consistently obstructed inspections at critical sites such as Fordow and Natanz. In response, the International Community passed a censure resolution through the International Atomic Energy Agency on June 11, with backing from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. However, this resolution merely acknowledged the violations without enforcing any consequences.

The idea that diplomacy can still yield meaningful results is fundamentally undermined by the historical evidence. Iran’s extensive and well-documented history of violations refutes any optimistic hopes for renewed negotiations. Those who believe that another round of discussions in Vienna could influence a regime that consistently obstructs inspector access and blatantly misrepresents its nuclear activities are operating under a misguided optimism, far removed from the realities faced by policymakers. General Kenneth McKenzie, former head of the United States Central Command, emphatically warned that Iran is “weeks away” from achieving a nuclear breakout. This assessment is not isolated; it resonates with experts like Olli Heinonen and Mark Fitzpatrick, along with credible institutions such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, all of which reinforce the urgency of addressing this imminent threat.

While the rationale behind these operations may be understandable, it is imperative that they adhere to the ethical standards of just war theory. A fundamental principle of this theory is proportionality, which plays a crucial role in guiding our actions. Israel recognizes this significance; thus, the operation was meticulously planned to target essential command and control facilities and enrichment infrastructure, all while striving to minimize harm to civilians. The selection of targets, the types of weapons employed, and the timing reflect a deliberate effort to protect civilian lives. This approach should not be interpreted as arrogance or moral posturing; rather, it demonstrates an awareness that even necessary force must be wielded with responsibility and care.

The issue, of course, is not limited to legal or tactical considerations. The heart of the matter lies in the strategic dilemma inherent to any situation in which time favors the aggressor. Allowing Iran to achieve functional nuclear capability would have irreversibly altered the regional balance of power. Iran is a radical Islamic regime, theocratic, ideological, and deeply antisemitic. It possesses intercontinental missile capabilities and proudly maintains operational ties with active terrorist groups. To imagine such a regime enjoying nuclear deterrence without effective opposition would have been tantamount to collective suicide. In this scenario, inaction was not, in any realistic sense, an option.

Also, the security of the Jewish State cannot rely on others. Unlike major powers, Israel does not have the luxury of absorbing a nuclear first strike and responding afterward. For the Jewish People, the active defense of life is not only a sovereign right. It is also a historical mandate; a lesson etched into our collective memory with uncompromising clarity by the Shoah.

Naturally, the risk of retaliation exists. Iran may activate Hezbollah, launch missiles from Yemen, or escalate its threats against regional partners of the West. However, it must also be said that the consequences of inaction would have been far more devastating. History is filled with conflicts that erupted under the illusion of avoiding provocation until it was too late. Passivity has never deterred those who interpret restraint as weakness. If Iranian behavior over the past two decades has shown anything, it is that deterrence only works when it is real, credible, and sustained.

Those who claim that this logic relies on teleological reasoning, or that it dangerously revives the notion that ends justify means, would do well to examine carefully the modern foundations of preventive self-defense in International Law. At its core, the doctrine seeks to prevent greater harm by taking lesser action, precisely at the moment when that path is still open. This is not a doctrine of convenience. It is a principle of strategic responsibility.

The criticism portraying Israel as a belligerent, unilateral, or overconfident actor deliberately ignores the years of warnings, reports, resolutions, and diplomatic mechanisms that Tehran systematically defied. If the relevant international players failed to respond with the seriousness that the situation demanded, the Jewish State could not allow itself to become hostage to their paralysis.

Israel acted not to boast, nor to display power, but as a calm, necessary, and legally grounded decision. Once again, it has borne the cost of stating an uncomfortable truth. In the real world, the defense of life, freedom, and sovereignty is not achieved through well-meaning statements. It is secured through difficult, principled, and determined choices. Israel did not act as a mythological hero, but as a responsible democracy that understands how thin the line is between civilization and barbarism in this part of the world, and that protecting that line allows for neither negligence nor delegation.