The U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran have drawn widespread international criticism and raised fears of escalating conflict. At an emergency UN Security Council session, several countries condemned the attacks and called for a ceasefire, while the IAEA confirmed damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities. China and Qatar warned of regional instability, particularly around global trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz. France criticised both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel, with citizens expressing concern over detainee safety.
In the U.S., political figures across party lines, including Democrats Chris Murphy and Sara Jacobs and Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, questioned the legality and necessity of the strikes. Analysts like Trita Parsi labelled the action unprovoked and risky. Media and commentators also condemned the strikes as a strategic diversion. Analysts such as Ori Goldberg suggested that Netanyahu aimed to shift focus from Gaza, while outlets like Al Jazeera and social media voices highlighted civilian harm and accused Israel of using the conflict to deflect from alleged war crimes.
Critics of Israel’s airstrikes on Iran often overlook its unique position as the only stable parliamentary democracy in the Middle East. Unlike other regional democracies prone to instability and authoritarianism, Israel maintains a multi-party system, regular elections, and an independent judiciary, though issues persist regarding minority rights and the treatment of Palestinians. As of 2025, Israel’s population is around 9.8–10 million, with 73–74% Jews, 20–21% Arab citizens, and 5–6% others, including migrant workers.
After the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, Israel revoked work permits for about 90,000 Palestinian workers, causing a construction sector crisis. To address this, Israel turned to India, its strategic partner, under a May 2023 agreement allowing up to 42,000 Indian workers—34,000 for construction and 8,000 for caregiving—making Indians an increasingly visible part of Israel’s population and economy.
Israel views Iran and its network of proxies—the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis—poses a serious existential threat to its security and democratic system. Iran’s advancing nuclear program, including uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade levels, fuels fears of a future nuclear-armed Iran that could deter Israeli action or directly threaten its existence. Jewish leaders, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu, cite historic trauma like the Holocaust to justify a firm stance against this threat.
Hostile rhetoric from Iranian leaders and hardline factions within the IRGC reinforces these fears, while Hezbollah’s vast missile arsenal and recent clashes with Israel in 2024–2025 have already displaced thousands. Other Iran-backed groups—Hamas, responsible for the deadly October 2023 attack, and the Houthis, who have launched missiles at Israel—contribute to a coordinated strategy of attrition. Iran’s regional reach through militias in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, along with its ideological anti-Zionism, positions it as a long-term, multi-front threat to Israel’s stability and survival.
What history teaches us about how to defeat Political Islam
The experience of the Kashmir conflict and broader developments in the Muslim world suggest that political Islam or Islamism can only be effectively countered through firm, often authoritarian measures, mirroring the ruthlessness of jihadist tactics.
Critics of Israel’s military response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack often cite Western double standards, but Israel is viewed by some as the only nation with both the intent and capacity to confront this global threat directly. Historical examples reinforce this argument.
Atatürk’s secular reforms in Turkey dismantled theocratic power structures, while Egypt’s 2013 military coup suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood through mass arrests and bans. Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian monarchy has used strict controls, surveillance, and selective reforms under MBS to suppress jihadist influence.
In each case, stability has been preserved at the cost of civil liberties, but arguably at the benefit of national security. Like Saudi Arabia, the UAE’s approach also combines strict surveillance, legal crackdowns, and centralised control of religious discourse with economic prosperity and modernisation to limit the appeal of extremism.
Israel has got this
Democratic openings in fragile states—such as Hamas’s 2006 electoral win and the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise in Egypt—have often empowered Islamists, justifying strong interventions to prevent extremist rule. The failure of the Arab Spring in many countries further illustrates how weak democracies can be exploited by well-organised Islamist groups. In post-2019 Kashmir, following the revocation of Article 370, India’s tough stance has reportedly emboldened secular voices against jihadist narratives.
Altogether, these examples are cited to argue that ruthless suppression—not liberal accommodation—is key to defeating political Islam and preserving long-term peace. Israel’s security-driven approach should be seen in the context of the history of the Middle East, whose history of conflict informs Israel’s perception of existential threats from Iran and proxies (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas), as discussed earlier.
Israel’s democratic status contrasts with regional authoritarianism (e.g., UAE, Saudi Arabia), but its security measures (e.g., Iran strikes, Palestinian worker bans) reflect the region’s legacy of decisive, often ruthless, responses to threats, echoing the UAE’s crackdowns on Islamists. The Jewish State has learned through bitter and wounded experience what India should have learned since 1947. The best its analysts can do is watch and learn. Israel has got this.
