To Take Action or to Betray History

At certain crucial moments, time shifts from being just a backdrop to a relentless force in its own right. History shows that failing to act can strip away, not only practical options, but also the moral justification for inaction. Once these climactic moments expire, they create a reality where intervention becomes unattainable, and the weight of inaction becomes a heavy burden. Israel, fully aware of the latter historical lesson that punishes hesitation and rewards those who seize the moment, decided to act when the opportunity remained. This was not the time for lengthy debates or mere symbolic gestures; it was a critical juncture where decisive action could still prevent disaster rather than respond to it. The choice lay between embracing life or succumbing to a diminished existence amid the fallout.

In the early hours of June 13, 2025, Israel carried out an operation targeting the heart of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. This action was not driven by revenge or a desire for regional dominance, but by a fundamental duty of statehood: the responsibility to protect its population from existential threats. For Israel, a Nation born in the aftermath of genocide, this duty is neither abstract nor ceremonial; it is real, immediate, and vital. This responsibility becomes relevant particularly when international institutions falter, diplomatic efforts fail, and oversight mechanisms cease to deter aggression. Israel acted out of necessity because no one else would. The decision was made with clarity and seriousness, fully aware that once the moment was gone, there would be no opportunity to rethink the choice.

Strategically speaking, the window for action was narrow but undeniably present. Iran had advanced beyond previous developmental phases of nuclear weapons. Unlike earlier times when uranium enrichment was kept below weapons-grade levels, Tehran had amassed enough highly enriched uranium to potentially build around fifteen nuclear warheads. More alarmingly, it had begun the logistical preparations for a quick assembly. Any further delay would have fundamentally changed the landscape, turning the situation from one of prevention into a matter of sheer response.

The operation was carried out with remarkable precision, balanced judgment, and careful restraint. Utilizing stealth F-35 aircraft, satellite-guided drones, sophisticated cyber capabilities, and electronic warfare systems, Israel successfully disrupted Iranian air defenses and executed a series of thoughtfully planned strikes. These actions were grounded in high-quality intelligence, bolstered by dissident sources within Iran, and reinforced by satellite surveillance. The aim was to neutralize crucial components of the nuclear program while keeping collateral damage to a minimum. The Israeli strikes were not random, they were designed with meticulous care to avoid harming innocents.

It is important to emphasize that the Iranian people were not the target of this operation, nor was it aimed at Iran’s rich cultural and historical heritage, which has sometimes served as a refuge for the persecuted and an ally to the Jewish people. The focus was solely on the regime itself: an ideological apparatus that denies Israel’s right to exist, manipulates religion for authoritarian purposes, and harbors genocidal threats. The goal was not to punish a nation but to dismantle an immediate danger. Israel’s intent is not the destruction of Iran; rather, it seeks to prevent a regime that has openly called for its annihilation from gaining the means to achieve that aim.

Equally noteworthy was the rare moment of political unity in Israel during this operation. After months of domestic discord and constitutional tensions, the existential threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran brought about an unprecedented level of national cohesion. The war cabinet operated with a sense of purpose and consensus. The Israel Defense Forces executed their plans with tactical independence paired with strategic caution. The parliamentary opposition temporarily set aside its criticism in the interest of national safety. Even as Israeli cities faced missile attacks in retaliation, civil society showed remarkable resilience. Over 85 percent of the population backed the decision, realizing that inaction would mean not only compromising their safety but also undermining their legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

The international context played a key role in the situation. The G7 summit in Italy offered a platform for discreet conversations and coordination among nations. Meanwhile, key Arab countries that had aligned with Israel through the Abraham Accords chose to stay silent. There were no sweeping condemnations or formal breaks in diplomatic relations. In the realm of international diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. The world’s focus was elsewhere, a fact not lost on Iran or Israel. This moment of global distraction presented the only real opportunity for action without sparking a wider regional conflict.

Reflecting on the circumstances, the strategic calculations become evident. If Israel had delayed even a few weeks, Iran might have successfully conducted a nuclear test. History has demonstrated, as seen in the case of North Korea, that even the mere display of nuclear capability grants a kind of strategic immunity. After such a demonstration, any intervention would likely be perceived as unprovoked aggression, shifting global perception and potentially portraying Iran as the victim. In international relations, how situations are perceived often shapes their reality. A delay would not have been a sign of caution but rather an indication of a failure to act decisively.

Nevertheless, the decision to strike was not driven solely by strategic considerations. It was also forged from a deeper moral obligation. For Israel, the memory of the Holocaust is not just an annual observance or a symbolic touchstone; it is a living mandate. It compels the nation to recognize emerging threats when others turn a blind eye, to speak out when others choose silence, and to act before the costs of inaction become irreparable. That responsibility cannot be handed off or postponed. It must be embraced fully or cast aside entirely.

Israel took on that responsibility. Its actions were not taken lightly or without trepidation; they were a matter of necessity. The nation acted with a full awareness of the risks, consequences, and the burden of history that weighed on its shoulders. Yet, it was also driven by the conviction that, in the Middle East, time favors those who hide their violent intentions behind a facade of negotiation. In such a landscape, waiting is not wisdom, it is a recipe for disaster.

Israel acted because to stand idle would have meant betraying its founding promise, its moral clarity, and its right to exist.