Israel’s strike last week against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missile program, as well as President Trump’s bold decision to strike the Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites, has drawn the usual handwringing from parts of the international community, including in Australia.

Critics accuse Israel, and the United States, of destabilising the region and acting outside the bounds of international law. But the facts — and the law — tell a very different story.

First, with respect to Israel’s action, which initiated this campaign last week, it needs to underscored that this was not an act of aggression. It was a lawful and necessary measure against a genocidal regime that has vowed to destroy the world’s only Jewish state — and stood on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, had Israel not acted.

To understand why, we must begin with a fundamental truth: Israel was already engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called the Jewish state a “cancerous tumour” that “must be eradicated.”

For decades, Iran has been the greatest source of destabilization and instability in the Middle East, while carrying out repeated acts of aggression against Israel through their vast network of terror proxies — from Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, to the Houthis in Yemen.

The October 7th massacre — the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust — was carried out by Hamas with Iranian money, weapons, and training.

And in April and October 2024, Iran escalated further, launching direct missile and drone attacks on Israel from its own territory. These were not isolated provocations but ongoing acts of armed conflict.

The reality is that, despite the best efforts of the U.S. Administration, diplomacy had failed.

In the lead-up to Israel’s strike, intelligence showed Iran enriching uranium to near-weapons grade, with capacity to build at least nine warheads. Ayatollah Khamenei himself had directed a covert group of scientists to assemble the components for a nuclear bomb and construct fortified underground facilities to conceal the work.

Then the International Atomic Energy Agency, for the first time in two decades, formally declared Iran in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Iran was now on the precipice of nuclear no return.

Faced with an existential and imminent threat, the Jewish state had no choice but to act before it was too late, as no doubt Australia would have, were it faced with the same threat.

Accordingly, Israel’s actions must be perceived within the bounds of the laws of armed conflict. Once a conflict exists, states may lawfully target enemy military objectives, as defined in the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, provided they observe the principles of distinction, necessity, and proportionality – which they have been in this case.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program, ballistic missile infrastructure and key military officials and scientists leading the nuclear weapons development program, clearly qualify as military objectives. These targets contribute to Iran’s war-making capability, and their neutralization offers a definite military advantage.

And whilst Iran presented an existential threat to the State of Israel, it was also a national security threat to the United States, and the region as a whole.

Just as they chanted ‘Death to Israel’, they chanted ‘Death to America’. They had the blood of hundreds of American forces and civilians on their hands. They closed off shipping routes. They tried to kill President Trump and other U.S. officials. IRGC assassins operated on U.S. soil.

And as President Trump stated in his address to the nation following U.S. strikes, “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

To be clear, the President did not require Congressional approval to conduct the military operation.

Under Art. II of the U.S. Constitution, the President as Commander-in-Chief, has authority to use military force to protect the national security and defend U.S. interests. Obama invoked it in taking out bin Laden in 2011 and Biden when U.S. bombed Iranian proxies in Syria in 2021.

The President’s decision to strike Iran is also reinforced under War Powers Resolution Act (1973) and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), as well as the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence” under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

In striking Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel and the United States made the world a safer place. They did it not only in their own defense, but in defense of the free world. Australia should acknowledge this and unequivocally stand with their allies.

Published in Financial Review, June  22, 2025.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is facing one of the most critical and decisive moments of his life and political career. His lifelong mission—to preserve the Islamic Revolution entrusted to him by Khomeini in 1989—is now under unprecedented threat.
Despite his June 18 warning to Trump not to enter the war or suffer “irreversible consequences,” the U.S. ignored him. Early this morning (June 22), American forces struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, including its crown jewel: the underground Fordow site.
Khamenei’s threats are losing their potency. He had repeatedly insisted Israel was incapable of striking Iran—until Israel proved him wrong, eliminating top commanders in their sleep in a surprise attack. The regime is now also losing its frontline nuclear scientists, critical to advancing and safeguarding Iran’s nuclear expertise—long a source of pride and deterrence for Khamenei.
The Supreme Leader has vowed a response. Since this morning, the regime has issued escalating threats. Yet Khamenei never intended to find himself in such a position of distress. Arriving here is a profound failure of strategic judgment.
Iran’s national security doctrine centers on avoiding direct war, preferring to operate through proxies painstakingly built over decades. Now, with Assad’s regime collapsed and Hezbollah defeated by Israel, Iran stands exposed and vulnerable—despite Khamenei’s recent insistence that the resistance axis remains strong.
He must now decide whether to strike U.S. assets in the region—potentially triggering a full-scale war with America. This would mark a radical departure from past strategy, and Iran’s own military brass have admitted their inferiority in any direct confrontation. Yet inaction could be equally dangerous, signaling weakness and inviting further escalation.
By clinging to Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium, Khamenei is now risking his life’s work—and possibly the regime’s survival.
This is Khamenei’s first war as Supreme Leader. In the 1980s, Iran fought a brutal eight-year war with Iraq. But since then, it has projected power through proxy wars in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen—even parts of Africa. That strategy has now collapsed.
Iranian society has changed dramatically in recent years. The regime cannot survive a war of attrition. Yet provoking U.S. intervention could shake the very foundations of the Islamic Republic. With national internet access cut off to suppress unrest, the specter of a fourth revolution in 200 years looms.
Khamenei is now searching for a way to preserve the regime’s fragile balance—without handing the United States and Israel a historic victory.

Published in Alma, June  23, 2025.

Executive Summary

At this moment, Israel is acting to remove the threat of Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile arsenal. The situation is still developing and detractors seek to draw attention to possible detrimental consequences of Israel’s action. It is therefore worth clarifying what the consequences of inaction would be, and what the grave reality of a nuclear Iran would look like.

Regarding the timing to act now, Iran was about to take the final steps toward having a nuclear bomb. In the past months it has leaped forward in uranium enrichment, bringing it within days of enough weapon’s grade uranium for a bomb, and enough for nine bombs with three weeks. In the days preceding the operation, the IAEA declared that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The window of opportunity for action was rapidly closing.

The fundamental reasons why a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel and a severe threat to global security, can be summarized as the following:

The threat of outright nuclear attack on Israel – The possibility of a surprise Iranian nuclear attack on Israel cannot be dismissed. The regime may act in ways not necessarily bound by Western notions of rationality — including the use of nuclear weapons even at the cost of self-destruction. Even if the regime is rational enough to avoid steps that would lead to its own destruction, if it were to assess that it could destroy Israel without endangering its survival, then it might indeed choose to launch a surprise attack on Israel with the aim of annihilation.

The possible use of a nuclear weapon in the event of regime collapse or other scenarios – In a scenario where the regime is on the verge of collapse, there is a real possibility that it would launch a nuclear attack on Israel, as the regime’s survival would no longer be a constraint. Additionally, errors stemming from the deep mutual distrust between the two countries could result in a nuclear exchange that neither side intended. The regime might also transfer a nuclear bomb to a terrorist organization, which would then use it against Israel without Iran taking responsibility.

Nuclear escalation as a tool for Iranian regional hegemony – Iran would use the threat of nuclear escalation to gain leverage in its regional struggles, and would intensify efforts to assert hegemony over the broader Middle East. It would limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. This would also place intense pressure on regional states to align with Iran or adopt conciliatory policies toward it.

Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East – A nuclear Iran would create a strong incentive for other regional powers to pursue nuclear capabilities or weapons of their own, which would create a highly unstable regional nuclear arms race and severely undermine the NPT.

Undermine US-led global order – A nuclear Iran would represent a significant strengthening of the anti-Western axis of China-Russia-Iran. Given Washington’s longstanding opposition to a nuclear Iran, a successful Iranian effort to become a nuclear state would cause great damage to the credibility of the U.S. worldwide.

To read the full article

The Israeli operation has left the regime in Tehran stunned. The boldness of the move, the depth of the intelligence penetration, the quality and variety of operational capabilities, the breadth of the theater of operations, the pace of strikes and assassinations, the number of targets hit, and the absolute freedom of action in the airspacem alongside the replication of the scenes from Gaza and Beirut, now playing out in Tehran, all of this has far exceeded what the Iranians thought possible within what they had expected from a “strike on the Iranian nuclear program.”

 The regime’s failure to protect its personnel and assets adds to its failure to deter Israel or prevent and disrupt the assault. Images of thousands of Tehran residents fleeing the city and reports of Russian President Vladimir Putin warning Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei about the peril facing his regime have brought humiliation. Since the start of the operation, the chain of events has exposed the regime’s weakness, not only in the eyes of its own citizens but also to the proxy forces under its patronage and to the countries of the region. The greater the Israeli achievement, the deeper the embarrassment for Iran.

 We have reason to be proud of our accomplishments, but under no circumstances should we fall into complacency or overconfidence. The mission is far from over. The ayatollah regime has already proven during its war with Iraq its ability to endure prolonged hardship, even at a high cost. It is less sensitive to attrition when it is the target, and it regularly uses such tactics against its enemies. Furthermore, it is not bound by the moral restraints that the West has imposed on itself. The recent missile launches targeting densely populated areas in Israel served only to reaffirm this reality. It is safe to assume that Iran’s security apparatuses will use any means, target, or theater to exact revenge and restore its honor. Israeli security forces are no doubt preparing accordingly.

 Still, Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal – its primary tool for establishing strategic symmetry – is not limitless. In the course of the fighting thus far, it has launched several hundred, and likely lost several hundred more in Israeli strikes. Given the current situation, it is presumed that Iran will struggle to replenish its stockpiles, limiting its ability to maintain the rate of fire we have seen and to rebalance the asymmetry that is forming vis-à-vis the Israel Defense Forces. While Iran still possesses an additional arsenal of cruise missiles, UAVs, and possibly other strategic projectiles, the challenge they pose is not equivalent to that of the ballistic missiles, whether due to their quantity or performance capabilities. The geographic distance that once posed a challenge to Israel may now become an advantage.

 The toppling of the Iranian regime or destabilizing it has not been defined by Israel’s Diplomatic-Security Cabinet as an explicit goal of the operation. That is understandable. Nonetheless, in Israel and in parts of the region and the West, the hope that such an outcome will occur, albeit not as a direct or immediate consequence, is hardly concealed.

 It is difficult to predict the tipping point for authoritarian regimes. We saw that clearly in the cascade of collapses during what was dubbed the “Arab Spring.” And we needn’t look that far back: Just six months ago, the world was stunned by the rapid collapse of the Syrian regime following a short surprise attack by opposition forces. This, of course, was aided by Israel’s earlier defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and by the long-term erosion of Assad’s rule since the 2011 outbreak of Syria’s civil war. The lesson here is not only how hard it is to pinpoint the moment of collapse, but also the cumulative impact of repeated blows, weaknesses, and cracks.

 In any case, the primary declared goals of the operation are to remove the nuclear threat and the strategic threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program. Israel’s actions thus far are progressing as planned, achieving their designated tactical objectives—and more. Reports of significant damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan are encouraging. The targeting of nuclear scientists is intended to deter other experts, those with or who may yet acquire similar knowledge, from joining any future efforts. A strike on the Fordow facility would leave Iran not only without its unique capabilities but also without a bargaining chip in any future negotiations, should they take place.

 Do not push the US

 The question of US involvement in offensive operations against Iran, within the framework of this campaign, is especially sensitive. While the US is offering diplomatic cover, supporting defense efforts, and supplying munitions, this is not the same as active offensive participation.

 Israel is well aware of voices within the US warning against American entanglement in a war that is not theirs. It is also aware that, if the US does join, it will not limit itself to military action but will seek to shape the course of the campaign. Still, from Israel’s perspective, the balance of risks and benefits leans in favor of American involvement. As long as Israel can manage on its own, it would be wise to maintain the current policy and, at least officially, leave the decision entirely in the hands of President Donald Trump.

 Exit strategy

 Early talk of an exit strategy plays into the perception of Israel that took root before October 7: Impatient and unable to sustain prolonged conflict.

 At this stage, Israel must continue to strike relentlessly, inflicting maximum damage in minimum time. This is the moment to severely impair Iran’s weapons development, research, and production capabilities and to strike at all branches of its strategic force.

 It is not only acceptable but necessary to take a skeptical view of overtures from Iran or its allies about resuming negotiations with the US. If Israel is drawn into such talks, the appropriate response should be: “Negotiations only under fire.”

 Israel must aim for the war to end not just with a devastating blow to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs but also with enforceable mechanisms that will, for many years, prevent the Islamic Republic from rebuilding its military and strategic capabilities. Operation Rising Lion is a historic opportunity to achieve that.

 Published in Israel Hayom, June  16, 2025.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Iranian regime has passed a message to the United States through intermediaries that it wants to negotiate de-escalation of its war with Israel.  Of course they do.  Iran’s tactics throughout its 30-year march to nuclear armaments has been to call for negotiations, spin them out, divide its interlocutors – and keep the centrifuges spinning.  This was its tactic as late as last Thursday, when it rejected an American position and hoped to participate in another negotiation session on Sunday, where its negotiators would seek to spin the talks out more.  The Ayatollahs simply want the bombing to stop so they can resume their tactic of negotiations that never lead anywhere, while they resume their dash for a nuclear bomb.

On Friday the 13^th the Ayatollahs’ luck ran out.  Israel, with the backing of the Trump administration, made it clear that the time for negotiations has passed.  Israel intends to peel away Iran’s military, its nuclear project, and its civilian economy layer by layer, like an onion.

In calling for negotiations Iran is hoping to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States, reengaging the latter in endless negotiations, holding out the prospect of a deal that, like the carrot hanging in front of a donkey’s nose, will always be just out of reach.  By backing Israel’s offensive against Iran the Trump administration has shown that it refuses to play the chump in this Iranian charade.  It would be a pity if the President were to succumb to Iranian blandishments now.

The kind of negotiations that the Iranian regime now needs to be engaged in are those the United States adopted toward Japan when it published the Potsdam Declaration in July 1945:  These are our terms.  Let us know when you’re ready to accept them.  Until then the bombing goes on.

The terms of the Potsdam Declaration the United States and Israel should proffer to Iran now are as follows:

Within 48 hours of accepting American and Israeli terms, Iran’s armed forces will evacuate all sited devoted to the mining, processing or storage of uranium and transuranic elements, the development of nuclear fission devices, and the production or deployment of ballistic missiles or military unpiloted vehicles (UAVs).  These sites will be turned over to the armed forces of the United States, which will dismantle and then destroy them.  Israel and the United States will provide the Iranians with a detailed list of sites to be destroyed.  Iran’s inventory of uranium, ballistic missiles and military UAVs will be evacuated to the United States.

To ensure the safety of American forces, Iranian armed forces will also turn over ports, airports and other facilities the United States deems necessary to ensure the safety of the forces carrying out the the terms outlined above.

Iran will undertake never to undertake the mining, refinement or production of uranium or transuranic elements, or the development, production or deployment of ballistic missiles or military unpiloted vehicles.

When American forces complete the destruction of the sites slated for destruction, they will leave the areas Iran has turned over to them, except that the United States will retain bases in Iran required to implement a regime of immediate inspection, without warning, of any site where activity Iran has committed not to engage in is suspected.  United States forces, on inspection of such sites, may destroy them.

The time for negotiations with Iran ended at 8 pm Washington time on June 12 (4 am on June 13 in Teheran).  What needs to be required now of Iran is swift compliance, not negotiation.  When Iran is ready to comply immediately with these terms it has only to pick up the phone.  Until then the bombing will continue.