Israel’s Attack on Iran Saves the Day

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

As Israeli planes and pilots in the sky, and Mossad agents on land, inflict tremendous damage on Iran’s nuclear project, ensuring that Iran will not soon, if ever, acquire nuclear weapons, the world is mostly ungrateful. Instead there will be a chorus of leaders insisting that the parties — that is, Israel — “exercise restraint.” That’s to be expected. More on the rank ingratitude as Israel “does the world’s dirty work,” can be found here: “Israel Does the World’s Dirty Work,” Elder of Ziyon, June 13, 2025:

The responses from the international community to Israel’s brilliant and audacious attack on Iran’s nuclear program are predictable.

The French Foreign Minister said, “We call on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any escalation that could compromise regional stability.”

The French foreign minister has things backward. By destroying Iran’s nuclear project, Israel will have made the Middle East, and the world, much more stable. Imagine the Supreme Leader with nuclear weapons, a threat not just to Israel, but to Sunni Arab states of the Gulf, and to the American military in bases throughout the region. Iran would also still have its ballistic missiles, that could carry those nuclear weapons as far as London. Is that anyone’s idea of “stability”?

Keir Starmer, UK PM, said, “Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.”

No, the “priority” is to make sure that the despotic Islamic regime of the mullahs does not acquire the most potent weapon of mass destruction — nuclear bombs. For the past two decades, the world has tried “restraint” to convince Iran to give up its nuclear project. Iran has constantly put the world off, and most recently, has been dragging out negotiations over its uranium enrichment program with the United States, using the time to continue to build up its stockpile of uranium enriched to a level of 60%, that is just one step below weapons-grade. The IAEA has just declared that Iran is in serious violation of its commitments, and has been lying to the IAEA about its nuclear program.

The Australian Foreign Minister said, “This risks further destabilising a region that is already volatile. We call on all parties to refrain from actions and rhetoric that will further exacerbate tensions.”

Again, we have the same demand from Australia as from France and the UK: don’t keep fighting — though not named, the intended recipient is embattled Israel — because that will “destabilize” the region. But the Middle East is already the most destabilized region of the world, precisely because of Iran’s aggressive behavior since 1979, including its support for the terror groups Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister said, “It’s a really unwelcome development in the Middle East. The risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action, and risk associated with that.”

Israel’s brilliant and breathtaking attack on Iran is “unwelcome”? Only to someone devoid of moral and geopolitical sense. By attacking Iran’s nuclear program, Israel is saving both itself and the rest of the world from an outlaw regime that, if it possessed nuclear weapons, would not hesitate to use them. As for that claim that the “risk of miscalculation is high” to which the prime minister of New Zealand refers, how does he know that the IDF, which appears to have planned its attack in meticulous detail, down to the very apartment inhabited by this general or that nuclear scientist, has “miscalculated the risk”? Is he privy to the IDF’s senior leaders’ decision-making?

Japan’s Foreign Minister said, “The government strongly condemns this action, which escalates the situation.”

Again, we hear that idiotic charge that Israel’s attack on Iran “escalates the situation.” Well, I suppose that any country that launches a preemptive attack on an aggressor who has demonstrated that he is rushing to acquire nuclear weapons in order, precisely, to use them on that country, is “escalating”the conflict, just the way the United States “escalated” its fight against Imperial Japan after Pearl Harbor, or Ukraine “escalated” its fight against Russia after the Russians invaded and seized one-fifth of Ukraine’s land area.

Plus the unanimous Arab condemnations of Israel….

The Arab states are in a different class. The Sunni states of the Gulf condemned pro forma Israel’s attack, but most of them, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait, are delighted to see Israel destroy Iran’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons which, they know, could have been used to threaten them.Comment:

Diplomacy did not protect Israel from attacks that began each of the three wars that the Jewish state had to fight for its very survival — in 1948, when the UN did nothing to prevent five Arab armies from invading the nascent state of Israel; in 1967, when the UN did as Nasser demanded and removed its peacekeeping troops from the Sinai, so that Egypt’s army could invade Israel without having the UN soldiers in the way; and in 1973, when the UN did not condemn the surprise attack on Israel launched by Egypt and Syria, and only called for a ceasefire after Israel had turned a defeat into a victory. Diplomacy at the UN has gained Israel nothing; the UN has become an endless series of sessions of a kangaroo court, with Israel perennially in the dock.

When the hurly-burly’s done, and the battle’s lost and won, when Israel emerges victorious and Iran is stripped of both its nuclear program and its ballistic missiles, perhaps a few of those countries and diplomats who are now are counseling “restraint” by Israel will recognize their past folly, and admit that they were wrong. It is pleasant to think so.