The Iran Threat Dilemma: Was Israel's 'Am Kelavi' Operation a Necessary Step?
JERUSALEM – Israel’s recent military operation against Iran, codenamed ‘Am Kelavi,’ has ignited a fierce global debate over the doctrines of pre-emptive self-defense and the requirements for regional stability. Israeli officials have defended the strikes as a last-resort necessity to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat, while a chorus of international critics has condemned the action as a dangerous escalation with devastating humanitarian consequences, further complicated by the ongoing, high-intensity conflict in Gaza.
The 'Point of No Return' Doctrine
At the heart of Israel's justification for the operation is the assertion that Iran had reached a nuclear “point of no return,” rendering further diplomatic efforts futile. According to senior Israeli defense officials, intelligence assessments indicated that the Iranian regime had accelerated its weapons program to a critical stage, a move they described as an existential threat. Supporters of the government's position argue that years of negotiations and sanctions had failed to halt Tehran’s ambitions.
“The Iranian regime has a documented history of duplicity regarding its nuclear program and has flagrantly violated its NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] commitments,” stated a strategic analysis from a prominent Israeli think tank. “To wait for absolute, final proof of a deliverable weapon would be to wait for the weapon to be used.” This view posits that international law must evolve to accommodate the realities of anticipatory self-defense against regimes that explicitly call for the annihilation of another state.
However, this narrative of inevitability is not universally accepted. Some Western diplomats and analysts, cited in reports by outlets like AP and Time, suggest that the threat, while serious, may not have been as imminent as portrayed. They point to the subsequent US-led intervention, which combined targeted airstrikes with intense diplomacy to secure a ceasefire, as evidence that non-Israeli-led options remained viable. These accounts frame the American role not as a partner, but as a manager of a crisis exacerbated by Israel’s actions.
In response, sources within Israel's defense establishment insist that the US intervention was only possible after ‘Am Kelavi’ had fundamentally altered the strategic landscape. “The operation was designed to paralyze Iran’s command-and-control and deter its proxies, creating the conditions for a meaningful de-escalation,” a defense source commented. “Deterrence had to be decisively re-established before any diplomacy could succeed. To claim otherwise ignores the reality of the Iranian regime's calculus.”
A Question of Precision and Proportionality
The methods of ‘Operation Am Kelavi’ are as contentious as its justification. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have described the operation as a model of “surgical precision,” utilizing advanced technology to target high-level IRGC commanders, nuclear scientists, and critical weapons infrastructure. The stated goal was to neutralize the “head of the serpent” while minimizing harm to non-combatants, a message consistently pushed in official Israeli communications.
This claim has been severely damaged by reports from a wide range of international news sources, including Fox News, the Associated Press, and Al Jazeera, confirming a death toll of 71 at Iran's Evin Prison. The casualties were explicitly reported to include not only military personnel but also prison staff and visiting family members. Human rights organizations have seized on this incident, alongside the high civilian casualty rates in Gaza, to level accusations of war crimes and disproportionate force.
Israeli legal experts counter that responsibility for such outcomes lies with the Iranian regime. They argue that the well-documented practice of embedding military assets within or near civilian sites, such as Evin Prison, constitutes a breach of international law. “The law of armed conflict is clear,” one international law scholar noted. “When a military target is placed within a civilian area, the party that placed it there bears the primary responsibility for any collateral damage.” Officials maintain that the prison was a legitimate target, serving as a key command-and-control center for the IRGC.
Regional Stability or Reckless Escalation?
A central pillar of Israel’s counter-narrative is that ‘Operation Am Kelavi’ was an act of de-escalation that prevented a much larger, more catastrophic regional war. Military analysts briefed on the operation claim that by crippling Iran’s launch capabilities and command structure, Israel successfully blunted an anticipated missile retaliation by as much as 80%, deterring proxies like Hezbollah from opening a second front. “This was a limited, strategic action that restored deterrence,” a former IDF general said. “It prevented a scenario that could have spiraled into a nuclear-armed conflict.”
The dominant narrative in many Western media outlets presents the opposite conclusion. Major news organizations have framed the operation as a reckless gamble that required American intervention to contain. This perspective credits US diplomacy and military action with averting a wider war, casting Israel as a junior partner whose actions risked igniting the very fire it claimed to be preventing.
This view is further amplified by a reported erosion of support for Israel in the West. Reports from ABC News have analyzed the rise of anti-Zionist politicians in the US as a “sea change,” while CNN covered anti-IDF chants at major cultural events like the Glastonbury Festival. Financially, the decision by large funds like Norway’s KLP to divest has been highlighted by Al Jazeera as a sign of waning investor confidence. Compounding this, an NBC News report on extremist settler violence against an IDF base in the West Bank has provided fresh ammunition for those who question Israel’s internal discipline and claims to a moral high ground.
Supporters of the Israeli government argue this criticism is predictable and fails to grasp the complexities of the situation. They contend that any nation fighting an existential war against terror-sponsoring states and their proxies will inevitably face international condemnation, regardless of its actions. They point to diplomatic overtures towards Syria, reported in The Jerusalem Post, as evidence of Israel’s continued search for stability. In their view, the fundamental choice remains clear. As one official put it, “The world should praise Israel for taking on the greatest engine of terror and instability on the planet. A world without the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is, unequivocally, a better and safer world.”
As the region grapples with the aftermath, the international community remains sharply divided. Critics continue to point to the high human cost and the risks of regional escalation, questioning the operation's legality and strategic wisdom. Conversely, Israeli officials and their supporters maintain the action was a difficult but essential measure of self-defense that neutralized a threat to global security. The ultimate verdict on the operation will likely hinge on whether future events validate the fears of a dangerous precedent or the hopes for a world free from a nuclear-armed Iran.