In 1981, when the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there were many expressions of indignation in the international community. In 2007, the same thing happened after the bombing of the Syrian regime's secret nuclear facilities. But time has shown who was right. Therefore, the Israeli attack on Iran in the early hours of June 13 must be understood for what it was: a preemptive act of self-defense and a service to regional and global security.
Operation Rising Lion, which involved some 200 aircraft and more than a hundred targets, aimed to prevent the Shiite theocracy that has ruled Iran since 1979 from achieving the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons. Carried out with surgical precision, the offensive hit uranium enrichment centers in Natanz, ballistic missile facilities, military depots, command centers and the top brass of the Iranian military apparatus, including the head of the Revolutionary Guards, Hossein Salami, and the chief of the General Staff, Mohammad Bagheri.
The timing was calculated. After nearly 20 months of open confrontation with Tehran’s armed wings – Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis – Israel had gained tactical superiority. Iran, isolated, exhausted, with its air defense degraded by previous attacks, was experiencing a rare moment of vulnerability. Tel Aviv assessed that the window of opportunity would be short. And that waiting any longer would mean running the risk of a nuclear bomb in the hands of those who promised to annihilate Israel.
The Iranian regime’s track record justifies skepticism about diplomatic channels. For decades, Tehran has violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Just days ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran is enriching uranium to near-military-grade levels, operating secret facilities and concealing information. At the same time, it has continued to negotiate with the United States while accelerating its program. Trust has been eroded.
The international community preached calm. But history teaches us that in the face of existential threats, passivity exacts its price. Israel’s survival doctrine – expressed for decades – is clear: there will be no second Holocaust by omission. The current offensive, like those of 1981 and 2007, is guided by this principle.
The consequences are unpredictable. Iran is already retaliating with drones and missiles, and may carry out terrorist attacks. But the cost of inaction would be greater. What is at stake is not just Israel’s existence, but the very logic of nuclear nonproliferation. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only threaten Israel, but would destabilize the entire Middle East, pushing other regional powers to seek their own nuclear arsenals.
Israel’s gamble is risky, but consistent with the signals that Iran itself has sent. The operation appears to target not only nuclear facilities, but also the dismantling of the “Axis of Resistance” and the structural weakening of the theocratic regime – eventually offering the opposition opportunities for regime change. If successful, it could pave the way for a new regional security architecture – with closer ties between Israel and Sunni Arab countries and, perhaps, even more realistic future conditions for a stable Palestinian state.
Israel acted alone, but it did not act alone. It also acted for those who, whether silently or publicly, recognize the predatory nature of the Iranian regime. Western leaders who today call for “moderation” will have to admit, as in the past, that it was Israel that did what needed to be done.
June 13, 2025, could mark the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, less marked by blackmail and closer to hard-won stability. Time will tell. It is too early to predict the outcome. But if the attack did indeed succeed in delaying Iran’s nuclear program and weakening its capacity for aggression, the world will have a concrete reason to be grateful – albeit in silence.
