Missile Strikes, U.S. Response, Israel’s Autonomy

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei strategically timed missile attacks against Israel to coincide with the eve of Rosh Hashanah. This calculated effort was meant to delay Israel’s counter-offensive, using the holiday to build international pressure and weaken Israel’s resolve. With Hezbollah significantly damaged and Hamas’s military infrastructure in ruins, Khamenei launched these strikes to project control, seeking to boost his forces’ morale and buy time—determined to avoid surrender.
These strikes are not mere retaliation; they are part of a broader war strategy. Under the laws of armed conflict, proportionality applies to minimizing civilian harm—not restricting a nation’s ability to defeat an enemy in an ongoing war. By focusing on proportionality as if Israel were responding to isolated provocations, the Biden-Harris administration risks misrepresenting the nature of this existential seven-front war. Israel is waging war against the Ayatollah’s proxy forces—non-state armed groups under his direct control—which have launched coordinated attacks on Israel, starting an active war and destabilizing the region.
The Ayatollah is not merely a participant but the “head of the snake,” directing operations through proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas, while holding the Iranian people hostage to his radical Islamist vision of regional domination.
While Israel has not officially declared the Ayatollah as a direct war objective, its stated goals of bringing the hostages home, securing northern borders, and dismantling military infrastructure in Gaza are tied to his proxy war. Neutralizing these groups serves the broader goal of dispossessing the Ayatollah from using his non-state armed groups on Israel’s borders.
Israel’s actions against proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas are justified, as he funds, arms, and strategically directs these groups through the IRGC and Quds Force. As the commander-in-chief of Iran’s armed forces and the ultimate authority behind these proxies, the Ayatollah constitutes a legitimate military target under the laws of armed conflict. His direct control over the IRGC and Quds Force, which explicitly coordinate and support Hezbollah and Hamas, places him in a military leadership role.
Khamenei and his regime frame their actions as retaliatory, signaling they will only attack if Israel strikes first. However, this misrepresents reality. The Ayatollah distances himself by acting through proxies, but Israel is already at war with him. The battlefield is shaped by his aggression and proxy warfare, and Khamenei does not get to dictate its terms. This rhetoric aims to obscure his role as the primary aggressor, but it doesn’t change the fact that he went to war with Israel through multi-front proxies and then attacked during the war on multiple occasions directly as well.
Proportionality concerns should focus on minimizing civilian casualties, not restricting Israel’s ability to dismantle the Ayatollah’s war infrastructure. Misapplying proportionality as if Israel is engaging in isolated skirmishes misinterprets its legitimate military objectives. Israel’s right to self-defense requires dismantling the Ayatollah’s military capabilities to ensure long-term security.
The Biden-Harris administration’s emphasis on proportionality risks reinforcing the Ayatollah’s narrative. By implying that Israel requires external guidance to comply with international law, this rhetoric undermines Israel’s sovereignty and position in the international community.
Initially, the administration framed Israel’s response as a humanitarian issue, implying that proportionality should limit its actions. While this may not have been intended as interference, it sends a problematic message. Reports later emerged that Israel might target oil refineries as part of a compromise, with further pressure advising against such actions. President Biden’s assertion that no administration has done more for Israel complicates this narrative, hinting arguably at conditional support during an existential conflict.
Meanwhile, some within the Democratic Party accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of using the conflict to influence U.S. elections, which reflects inconsistency. While condemning Netanyahu for allegedly shaping U.S. outcomes, the Democratic Party has pressured Israel on territorial concessions and labeled leaders opposing the two-state solution as extremists. This could prompt voters concerned about Israel’s security to reconsider their support for Kamala Harris.
The perception of U.S. influence during the holiday frustrated many Israelis. The idea that U.S. support hinges on Israel’s compliance with Washington undermines Israel’s autonomy, even when accompanied by disclaimers that this is not the case. Meanwhile, the Ayatollah’s Revolutionary Guards continue backing forces across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The Biden-Harris administration’s approach, even if unintended, risks emboldening adversaries and weakening U.S. credibility.
In this war for survival, Israel has the right not just to defend itself but to decisively defeat those explicitly seeking its destruction. Questioning the legality of targeting the Ayatollah’s nuclear facilities due to proportionality concerns ignores that these facilities are central to Iran’s imminent military threat. If it is too late to prevent Iran under his leadership from a nuclear breakout, then the moral imperative to defeat the Ayatollah becomes even more pressing.
Suggesting Israel must follow U.S. recommendations undermines its independent military decisions. We do not want to see Israel growing more cautious in sharing strategic plans with the U.S. The Biden-Harris administration’s diplomatic approach, while perhaps well-intentioned, risks creating distance between the two nations at a time when Israel needs unwavering support.