Israel Stepped in Where the West Did Not

As the Trump administration reopened channels to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran in recent months, Israel—which has been sounding the alarm about the Islamic Republic’s regime for years—adopted a posture of preparedness.[i] The Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who famously warned the UN General Assembly with a placard showcasing Iran’s nuclear ambitions in 2012, assessed that Tehran was exploiting the negotiations as a stalling tactic to advance its nuclear weapons capabilities. Israel’s defence cadre justified their unprecedented strikes on Iran, which began on 13^th June, by stating that recently gathered intelligence indicated Iran was “approaching the point of no return”[ii] in its nuclear weapons programme.

With a two-month deadline[iii] on the U.S. proposal, the talks were poised to enter a sixth round.[iv] Yet, even as Iran ramped up[v] uranium enrichment and escalated its threats against regional actors, the international community remained paralyzed. Western powers wavered between appeasement and passivity, hesitant to confront Iran more firmly. Into this strategic void stepped Israel, arguably the most threatened by Iran out of the foreign actors that have engaged with the policy issue pertaining to the country’s nuclear proliferation.

Israeli strikes on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility[vi] and targeted eliminations of senior commanders[vii] of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)[viii] delivered a clear message: there are red lines, and Iran had crossed them. Israel’s actions will at least halt or altogether jeopardize nuclear negotiations, forcing Tehran to reconsider its approach—not because of diplomatic pressure from Washington or Brussels, but because of direct Israeli deterrence.

For years, the global community has tolerated Iran’s malign regional behaviour: propping up proxy militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Gaza; suppressing its own population[ix], especially its non-Persian national and ethnic groups, including the Kurds, Baluch and Arabs with violence, execution and censorship; and openly calling for and threatening the destruction of Israel.[x] Western democracies, while championing human rights and non-proliferation, have consistently failed to act when confronted with Iran’s expansionist doctrine in practice.

What’s more, many in the international community have pushed for a diplomatic opening with Iran[xi] while chastising Israel for responding to legitimate threats to its national security. Israel is not simply reacting for its own survival. Its actions have, in fact, constrained Iranian military adventurism and limited Tehran’s ability to further destabilize the region. In doing so, Israel has provided a vital strategic service that Western powers have been unwilling to perform. Similar arguments could be made for its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip and its prior military operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which other prominent regional actors observed with quiet acquiescence.

The Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, which revealed weaknesses in Israel’s security apparatus, have made the restoration of its deterrence capability—and the trust of its own population—a matter of existential importance. No longer content with isolated counter-strikes and pre-emptive operations, Israel has adopted a broader doctrine aimed at rolling back Iranian influence wherever it emerges, be it in Gaza, Damascus, or southern Lebanon. The essential collapse of Iran’s network of proxies in the Levant in parallel with the fall of the Assad regime—a key strategic supply line that Tehran had used to prop up Hezbollah for years—meant, however, that Iran’s own deterrence power was drastically weakened. Effectively countering direct military threats from Iranian proxies therefore increased the probability of Tehran’s turning to its remaining domestic deterrence capabilities—its own military force and the nuclear trump card.

The current war is thus not merely about Israel’s threat perceptions, but a broader strategic failure by the West to uphold the post-Cold War order in the Middle East. Iran’s aggression filled a vacuum left by fading American influence and European indecision in the region. Wherever Iran gained a foothold, militias sprouted, state apparatuses splintered, sectarianism increased, and instability deepened.

International outrage over Israel’s operations—amplified by Tehran’s efforts to frame them as part of an aggressive, expansionist agenda—should not overshadow the far greater, long-term threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional destabilisation.

Until the international community wakes up to the magnitude of the threat posed by Iran and its nuclear and missile ambitions—not just to Israel but to the broader international system—such unilateral actions will continue to be necessary.