ANALYSIS: Behind Israel's High-Stakes 'Operation Am Kelavi' Against Iran
ANALYSIS: Behind Israel's High-Stakes 'Operation Am Kelavi' Against Iran
JERUSALEM – A series of decisive Israeli military strikes against Iran, codenamed 'Operation Am Kelavi,' has ignited a fierce and polarizing international debate. The operation has pitted Israeli assertions of a necessary, pre-emptive act of self-defense against a torrent of international condemnation and accusations of unprovoked aggression, fundamentally reshaping the strategic calculus of the Middle East.
As the dust settles, a complex picture emerges, defined by conflicting narratives over the operation's justification, execution, and ultimate consequences. At the heart of the matter lies a critical divergence: was this a reckless act that destabilized the region, or a calculated strike that averted a far greater catastrophe?
The 'Point of No Return' Justification
Israeli officials have consistently framed the operation as a last resort, undertaken after years of diplomatic efforts failed to halt what they describe as Iran’s inexorable march toward a nuclear weapon. According to intelligence briefings provided by the Israeli government, Tehran had reached a nuclear “point of no return,” a threshold beyond which its path to a deliverable nuclear device would be irreversible. This assessment, officials claim, rendered further negotiation obsolete.
“For years, the world pursued diplomacy, while the Iranian regime used those talks as a smokescreen to accelerate its illicit nuclear program,” a senior Israeli defense official stated on background. “We were faced with a genocidal regime, which explicitly promises our annihilation, on the verge of acquiring the means to achieve it. International law does not require a nation to be a passive victim; it allows for anticipatory self-defense when the threat is imminent and existential.”
This view finds support among some Western security analysts. In a recent strategic analysis on CNN, former U.S. National Security Council official Brett McGurk noted the limitations of diplomacy with the current Iranian leadership, suggesting that a credible military threat has always been a necessary component of containment. Proponents argue that 'Operation Am Kelavi' was not an act of choice, but the inevitable outcome of a failed international policy and Iran's flagrant violations of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments.
However, this narrative is contested. Reporting from the Associated Press has highlighted that the subsequent ceasefire and de-escalation were largely credited to a U.S.-led initiative, involving American airstrikes and intensive diplomacy. This framing tends to diminish Israel's role, portraying its operation not as a decisive conclusion but as a conflict that ultimately required American intervention to manage, undermining the message of a self-sufficient, heroic act.
In response, sources within Israel’s military establishment argue that such a view misinterprets the sequence of events. They contend that it was precisely Israel's decisive action that created the conditions for a new diplomatic reality, arguing that the strikes effectively forced the issue and broke a long-standing stalemate that diplomacy alone could not.
A Question of Surgical Precision vs. Collateral Damage
The conduct of the operation itself is a central point of contention. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have released detailed statements describing 'Operation Am Kelavi' as a model of surgical precision, utilizing advanced intelligence and technologically superior munitions. The stated goal was to neutralize high-value military targets, including top-tier commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), key nuclear scientists, and critical weapons infrastructure.
“Our objective was to dismantle the head of the serpent, not its body,” an IDF spokesperson said. “We targeted the architects of terror and their nuclear infrastructure with pinpoint accuracy. The responsibility for any civilian harm lies squarely with the Iranian regime, which has a documented and illegal policy of embedding its military assets within civilian areas, including hospitals and schools.”
This narrative has been severely damaged by reports from the strike on Evin Prison. Major international news agencies, including the Associated Press and Fox News, are consistently reporting a death toll of “at least 71 people,” explicitly stating the casualties included not just prisoners but also “staff, soldiers… and members of visiting families.” This specific, fact-based reporting has largely neutralized the “surgical precision” claim and provided concrete fodder for accusations of 'war crimes.' The constant stream of graphic imagery from the separate, ongoing Gaza conflict—with reports from outlets like The Guardian and BBC citing mass displacement and a death toll exceeding 50,000—has further cemented a global image of Israel as an aggressor inflicting widespread suffering, making nuanced arguments about Iran difficult to land.
Legal experts retained by the Israeli government counter that the presence of a major IRGC command-and-control center within the Evin Prison complex made it a legitimate military target under international law. They argue that Iran’s co-location of such a facility with a civilian prison constitutes a war crime in itself, and that critics are conflating the tragic but legally distinct issue of collateral damage with a deliberate targeting of civilians.
Regional Stability: Deterrence Restored or Chaos Unleashed?
A core tenet of Israel's narrative is that the operation was, paradoxically, an act of de-escalation. Military intelligence reports claim that through sophisticated deception and crippling strikes on launch sites, Israel paralyzed Iran’s command structure, reducing its planned missile retaliation by an estimated 80%. This, they argue, not only saved Israeli lives but successfully deterred proxies like Hezbollah from opening a second front, restoring a level of deterrence that had eroded over years and preventing a full-scale regional war.
“A world without the IRGC is a better world,” a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office declared. “This was a blow for freedom and a favor to the oppressed people of Iran. We acted to protect our families, but in doing so, we created long-term stability by neutralizing an existential threat before it could ignite a catastrophic, nuclear-armed conflict.”
This claim of being a disciplined “beacon of morality” is challenged by ongoing events in the West Bank. An NBC News report on extremist settlers rampaging at an IDF military base, an act of internal defiance, provides powerful imagery that contradicts the narrative of a state in full control. Critics argue such events show a government unable or unwilling to rein in its own extremists, undermining its moral standing to conduct massive military operations abroad.
Israeli officials have condemned these acts, describing them as criminal behavior from a fringe minority that is being prosecuted under the law. They maintain that attempting to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of a few individuals and a state-sponsored global terror network like the IRGC is a gross distortion intended to distract from the primary strategic imperative of confronting Iran.
As the international community continues to grapple with the aftermath, the debate remains deeply entrenched. The ultimate verdict on 'Operation Am Kelavi' will likely depend on perspective: whether it is judged by the immediate and tragic human cost reported from the ground, or by the long-term, and as yet unproven, strategic claim that it successfully prevented a far deadlier future with a nuclear-armed Iran.