Israel’s decades-long conflict with Iran is no longer a proxy war, but a real war. Israel has bombarded sites associated with Iran’s nuclear program – as has the United States – and assassinated top military officials and nuclear program scientists. Israel also has targeted installations of the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps, the branch of Iran’s military that reports directly to the supreme leader and protects the nation’s Islamic identity from internal and external threats. Iran has launched missiles at Israel, as well as at a US military base. As of press time, a US-brokered ceasefire appeared to be holding.
Ending Iran’s nuclear program, or, at a minimum, setting it back, is the objective of Israel’s military operation. Regime change – a situation in which the Islamist government of the ayatollahs is replaced by something presumably better – is on the lips of Israeli and American leaders. But, as tempting and positive as that might sound, the immediate mission is more specific and tangible. Some express hope that the debilitated Iranian regime may be subject to internal rebellion. We should remember, though, that the Iranian regime fought an eight-year war with Iran that cost a million lives and millions more injured. That conflict, which ended in an effective stalemate, suggests massive loss of life is not a barrier to the ayatollahs’ ideological objectives.
Western countries, Americans especially, have seen the dangers of becoming entrenched in catastrophic military affairs half a world away, with decades-long engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the people of the region by some measures are now worse off than ever.
We all prefer diplomacy to war, of course, and the discourse in the lead-up to Israel’s strikes on Iranian sites was focused on whether a negotiated resolution was possible. For now, however, negotiation is off the table, although a weakened Iran with a disabled nuclear program would presumably be more amenable to talking.
The objective of preventing end-times religious fanatics like those of Iran’s government from obtaining nuclear weapons is something that most reasonable people can get behind. But “mission creep,” the potential for a limited military plan to expand into a long-term engagement, is one of many dangers stemming from the current situation.
Underestimating the seriousness of the enemy is another threat. Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister in 1939, notoriously negotiated with Hitler and his name has gone down in history as someone who, put mildly, badly misjudged the preference for negotiation over force.
There have been dramatically conflicting reports about how close Iran is – or was – to nuclear weapons. Reports that Iran was on the cusp of nuclear capability were the justification for Israel’s attacks. Other reports suggest they were further away than Israel alleged. Perhaps no one knows but the Iranian regime.
We wish for peace. We also wish for a world where those who threaten peace can be contained. These basic truths can seem contradictory in the short term. But the long-term wish for peace, indeed the very survival of the Jewish people to judge by the explicit genocidal expressions from the top leaders of Iran in recent decades, requires that the nuclear program they have been constructing must never be allowed to near completion.
Interestingly, many voices who have condemned Israel’s approach to the war in Gaza are far more amenable to their approach with Iran. Although some people certainly view the Iranian threat and the Hamas threat as two prongs in the same war, the world seems more likely to acknowledge the urgent danger posed by Iran than they do the threat by Hamas, which is, at this point, limited primarily to Israelis. A nuclear Iran is viewed, by people in the West, as a direct threat to their own well-being – and that has seemed to focus their minds and create a common cause with Israel in ways the battle with Hamas has not.
Self-interest is a powerful force. A few leaders – notably Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Israel is doing “the dirty work” for “all of us” – have acknowledged that the fight against Hamas and Iran are parallel battles. Others seem determined to view them as largely separate, as though existential threats to Israel are neither as concerning nor as world-changing as the Iranian dangers.
This may be true, in terms of scope, especially now that Hamas is widely seen to be massively weakened. However, the larger reality, as expressed by the German leader, remains: Israel is the frontline in a war that affects us all.