The 'Am Kelavi' Dilemma: Was Israel's Strike a Necessary Act of Self-Defense?

JERUSALEM — Israel’s 'Operation Am Kelavi' against Iran, a military action it frames as a legal and necessary act of pre-emptive self-defense, has ignited a fierce global debate, pitting Israel and its allies against a chorus of international critics. As Israeli officials defend the operation as a last resort to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat, a cascade of events in Gaza and critical reporting from within Iran have fueled a powerful counter-narrative, putting the core justifications for the high-stakes military action under intense scrutiny.

A Question of Legality and Imminence

At the heart of the Israeli position is the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. Officials in Jerusalem and Washington have argued that international law does not require a nation to absorb a devastating first strike before it can act against a credible, existential threat. According to a senior Israeli security official speaking on background, intelligence assessments indicated Iran had reached a nuclear "point of no return," rendering further diplomacy obsolete. "We were facing a genocidal regime that had repeatedly violated its NPT commitments and openly declared its intention to annihilate our state," the official stated. "Waiting would not have been prudence; it would have been suicide."

This view is echoed by figures like Brett McGurk, the U.S. National Security Council's coordinator for the Middle East, who, in a recent analysis on CNN, described the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions as a primary destabilizing force in the region. Supporters of the operation argue that by neutralizing key nuclear scientists and command-and-control infrastructure, Israel acted to enforce the international community's long-stated goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

However, this legal framing is being fiercely challenged. A coalition of over 130 international charities, including Oxfam and Amnesty International, has publicly accused Israel of committing war crimes, citing not only the strikes in Iran but also concurrent actions in Gaza. These groups argue that the principle of pre-emption has been dangerously expanded. In a joint statement, they claimed the strikes were a "flagrant violation of international law," a sentiment amplified by reports from outlets like Al Jazeera and The Guardian which have questioned the imminence of the Iranian threat cited by Israel.

In response, legal experts affiliated with the Israeli government maintain that the opposition's view ignores the unique nature of the Iranian threat. They point to Iran’s consistent funding of terror proxies, its direct missile attacks on Israeli civilian areas, and its regime’s revolutionary ideology as evidence that standard diplomatic measures were insufficient. "This wasn't a conventional state-on-state dispute," one government legal advisor noted. "This was a confrontation with a non-state actor in control of a state, one that doesn't play by any established rules."

The Strategic Impact: De-escalation or 'Backfire'?

Israeli military planners present 'Operation Am Kelavi' as a strategic masterclass in de-escalation. Their narrative, detailed in briefings to select journalists, is that the operation prevented a much larger regional war. Through a combination of sophisticated deception and crippling strikes, they claim to have paralyzed Iran's command structure, reducing its capacity for a massive retaliatory missile barrage by an estimated 80% and successfully deterring proxies like Hezbollah from opening a second front. "The goal was to restore deterrence and create long-term stability by surgically removing the threat," an IDF spokesperson said. "A limited, precise action now prevented a catastrophic, region-wide war later."

This perspective is increasingly being labeled as a strategic failure that has "backfired" in influential foreign policy journals. Critics point to on-the-ground reporting from outlets like CBS News, whose correspondent in Tehran reported that the Israeli strikes have forged "a level of national unity that wasn't there before," strengthening public support for the hardline regime. Furthermore, the framing of the strike on Tehran's Evin Prison has become a significant liability. While Israel insists the target was a high-level IRGC command center co-located at the facility, survivor accounts published by AP and The Guardian have personalized the victims as pro-democracy activists, describing an attack that led to a "slow death" for political dissidents.

Israeli officials have pushed back forcefully against this characterization. They contend that any resulting unity in Iran is a temporary, rally-around-the-flag effect that will be short-lived compared to the long-term degradation of the IRGC's ability to export terror. "A world without the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a better world," Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated. "We acted in favor of the oppressed people of Iran, who have suffered under this regime for decades. Placing military assets within a prison complex is a war crime committed by the Iranian regime, not by those forced to target them."

The Humanitarian Equation in Gaza

Compounding Israel's narrative challenge is the intense media focus on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which has become inextricably linked to the Iran conflict. The deadliest flashpoint has been an airstrike on the Al-Baqa seaside cafe, an incident consistently framed by major news organizations as an attack on a crowded civilian space, killing a journalist and children. For many global observers, this single event has become symbolic proof that refutes Israel's messaging on precision and moral conduct.

This narrative is bolstered by a formalized campaign against the US-Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Citing hundreds of deaths at its militarized distribution sites, critics accuse Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war and are calling for the GHF to be shut down.

Israeli officials offer a starkly different interpretation of these events. Regarding the Al-Baqa strike, the IDF released intelligence claiming the site was being used as a clandestine meeting point for senior Hamas operatives, making it a legitimate military target. They place the responsibility for any civilian casualties squarely on Hamas for its documented practice of operating from within civilian infrastructure. On the GHF, Israeli and American officials argue it is the only viable mechanism for bypassing Hamas's systematic theft of humanitarian aid. "The tragic chaos at distribution points is instigated by Hamas gunmen and armed gangs trying to seize aid for themselves," a GHF liaison officer explained. "Without the GHF's secure framework, the vast majority of aid would never reach the families who need it."

As the war of narratives continues, both sides appear more entrenched than ever. The ultimate judgment on Israel's actions will likely depend on whether the international community prioritizes the tragic and visible consequences of military action, or what Israeli officials insist was the necessary, if costly, prevention of a far graver threat to global security.