There are moments in history when leaders, gripped by a crisis, make bold decisions for the good of future generations. President Trump’s decision to launch strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities in Operation ‘Midnight Hammer’ was one such example.
It was an act of statesmanship, taken in the teeth of domestic opposition and flying in the face of an international consensus that demanded ‘stability’ and diplomacy. Thanks to the American intervention, Iran’s nuclear programme has likely been set back several years and the world’s leading state sponsor of terror has been humbled, once again.
The American/Israeli operations are a profound reassertion of western resolve and military force in the face of challenges from autocratic powers. They have shown that it is possible to confront a state’s terrorism with resolve and moral clarity, rather than appeasement. They have weakened a regime that has, for decades, spewed undiluted hatred against the West, the US and Israel, and sponsored terrorism throughout the world. That terrorism has claimed the lives of hundreds of American servicemen, as Trump rightly pointed out in his speech after the attacks.
But if Trump deserves credit, then Netanyahu deserves even more. For decades, he has sought to persuade a reluctant West to deal with the urgent threat of Iran’s atomic ambitions. For years, he has railed against ineffective western policy, arguing that appeasement would lead to unmitigated disaster.
Then came October 7, a day when Israelis had a collective epiphany. They realised that they could not leave a genocidal enemy free to amass weapons of destruction on its border, or even at a distance, in the hope that they could be deterred. Such an enemy had to be crushed into submission and forced to accept defeat.
The attack on Iran, following the defeats of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the fall of Assad, was Israel’s long term response to October 7 and represented a stunning vindication of Netanyahu’s persistence, resolve and diplomacy.
Yes, this is the same Netanyahu who has pursued divisive policies at home, appointed far right ministers to his cabinet and failed to take responsibility for the October 7 calamity. He will not be forgiven for those appalling errors of judgement. But it would be churlish not to acknowledge his remarkably prudent judgement in pushing for a major escalation against the ayatollahs. Reducing Iran’s long term threat to Israel should be seen as the most consequential policy of his career.
Similarly, this is the same Trump who encouraged the Jan 6 insurrection, scolded Zelensky in the White House, reproduced Kremlin talking points and sided with Qatar, to name just a few egregious policies. Choosing a just and wise approach towards Iran doesn’t wipe away those ignominious decisions but does represent an important foreign policy win.
A nuclear Iran would have become the focal point of a Shia jihadist empire extending from Tehran to Beirut
Many in the UK have criticised the use of force, among them many Labour MPs. Diplomacy, they tell us, was the preferred option for dealing with this crisis and this theme continues to explain why Starmer’s increasingly irrelevant government still cannot say if it supports Trump’s actions.
Dr. Jeremy Havardi
But let us be clear: there was no other way to deal with the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions than through force. Apart from Trump’s 60 day deadline, which Iran defied, the West tried diplomacy through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015).
While that agreement limited uranium enrichment to 3.67%, it had sunset clauses which meant that after a decade, Iran would have been free to become a breakout nuclear power. It would have possessed nuclear know how from its permitted research and development activities. It would have been armed with ballistic missiles capable of hitting cities in Europe and the Middle East and it would have continued to fund terror proxies using billions of dollars from sanctions relief. Eventually, we would have faced the nightmare prospect of a nuclear armed ayatollah regime.
A nuclear Iran would have become the focal point of a Shia jihadist empire extending from Tehran to Beirut, able to impose its will on neighbouring states and make good on its blood curdling, genocidal threats to annihilate Israel. Seeing this, other Arab countries might have sensed the need for their own atomic arsenal, causing waves of instability across the region and the destruction of the non-proliferation treaty. A nuclear Iran would have posed an existential threat to Israel, and an immense problem for the rest of the world.
Of course, Trump’s attack is not without significant risks. It is likely that Iran could ask its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria to attack American military and diplomatic assets in the region. It could make good on the recent parliamentary vote to close the Straits of Hormuz. It could also try to unleash acts of terror against western targets using whatever criminal proxies it still has.
But this need not induce pessimism. Iran has never been weaker and faces isolation in the region, as well as deep discontent at home. Its air defences have been obliterated and its security services have been hollowed out after being penetrated by Israeli intelligence. Attacking America’s regional assets would invite powerful retribution from Washington and potentially spell doom for the regime.
Thus, Trump could well try and strike a deal with the mullahs: commit to abandoning the entire nuclear programme, including giving up any fissile material that may have been hidden in secret locations, as well as rolling back the terror proxies, in return for an end to hostilities. The ayatollahs have been pragmatic in the past, especially in accepting a ceasefire to end the Iran-Iraq war, and the same could be true here. A false move could spell disaster for the regime with immense consequences for the world.
But for now, we should simply acknowledge that Netanyahu and Trump made the right call on Iran. Both have spoken with stark clarity about the threat posed by the regime and have followed this with decisive military action. The world is in a safer place because of them.
- Dr. Jeremy Havardi is a freelance journalist and author