a day ago
The world won't acknowledge it yet, but we owe Israel a debt of gratitude
'I swear I believe Armageddon is near.' This was Ronald Reagan's initial reaction, writing in his diary, after hearing news of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak on June 7 1981. The Israeli attack was a major operational success, destroying Osirak and denying Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein a nuclear bomb. In time, American leaders would come to recognise that they owed Israel a huge debt of gratitude for disarming Iraq's monstrous tyrant. Yet this is not how they reacted publicly at the time.
For the deeply religious Reagan, with his profound aversion to nuclear weapons, his initial reaction was a mix of horror and confusion. As the historian William Inboden put it in The Peacemaker, his recent book on the US president's national security strategy, 'Reagan worried that his first year in office might also be the last year of Earth's existence.' President Donald Trump may not share Reagan's religious faith but he has spoken repeatedly over many years of his fear of nuclear war. This is likely to colour his response to the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Like the Reagan White House, the Trump's administration's avowed policy positions should, on the surface, lead it to endorse the strikes – support for Israel, opposition to nuclear proliferation and disgust at the target, in both cases a tyrannical regime that has committed itself to Israel's destruction and unleashed bloodshed across the region.
Yet other diplomatic considerations led the Reagan administration to publicly disassociate itself from Israel. The White House denounced the attack. At the United Nations, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick allowed a Security Council Resolution condemning Israel to pass without issuing a US veto. And initially the US suspended any further sales of F-16s to Israel.
These positions derived from a number of conflicting policy priorities. First, there was concern about the reaction of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. Secondly, there was a growing sense in the White House that the US should support Saddam's Iraq in its war with Iran, which had begun the previous year. Thirdly, there was concern about the potential for wider regional escalation, particularly in Lebanon. That war-torn country, occupied by Syria, had served as the base for regular Palestinian guerilla attacks on Israel and was now hosting Syrian SA-6 missiles. Israel was determined to remove this threat but the Reagan administration wanted to negotiate a settlement. Fourthly, and overhanging all of this, was the wider fear that America's Cold War antagonist the Soviet Union might exploit the regional upheaval.
Yet there were other officials in the administration who recognised that what Israel had done at Osirak was necessary, not only for its own security but that of the US too. And while Reagan reprimanded the Israeli ambassador that the US was 'caught by surprise,' he would very quickly begin to empathise with the Israelis. 'Indignation on behalf of Iraq is a waste,' he wrote in his diary. 'Saddam Hussein is a 'no good nut' and I think he was trying to build a nuclear weapon.' What's more, he had 'called for the destruction of Israel' and the threat thus had to be removed. After reflection, Reagan resumed sending F-16s to Israel.
Just like Reagan, President Trump has distanced his administration from the Israeli strikes, although he has not yet gone so far as to issue any condemnation. Like Reagan, Trump had hoped to solve broader regional issues by negotiations rather than strikes. Yet there are important differences with 1981. Firstly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that Israel had informed the US ahead of time that 'this action was necessary for its self-defence.' Secondly, many of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, have long feared what Iran's theocratic Shiite rulers will do with a nuclear weapon. They are less likely than they were in 1981 to be condemning Israel's attack on Iran behind closed doors, whatever they say publicly. Thirdly, Iran has moved well beyond Saddam's rhetorical denunciation and support for terrorist attacks. Since October 7th 2023, they and their proxies have unleashed a broad, multi-front attack on Israel with its proxies.
Yet by escalating its conflict with Israel, Iran has also left itself weaker, with its proxies devastated and its own air defences largely demolished by Israel last year. The Iranian nuclear weapons programme might be more sophisticated and spread out than the Iraqi one at Osirak. But Iran is also more isolated in the region.
Even more so than with Saddam in 1981, the moment of maximum danger has already approached for Israel. While intelligence then suggested Osirak would become operational within months, the Iranians are currently enriching uranium to such levels that they are already a threshold nuclear state that could step over that precipice in days.
Just as in 1981, much of the region and the wider world will condemn Israel's actions. But just as then, I suspect in time, the vast majority will come to be exceedingly grateful for what they have done.
Iranian drones are already enabling Russia to pound Ukrainian cities, while the Islamic Republic's agents are targeting dissidents in the West, interfering in our elections, and unleashing violence on our streets. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei would have been as dangerous, if not worse, than one in the hands of Saddam Hussein.
It remains to be seen if the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities prove as successful as their previous attack on Osirak. If it does then Western governments should be grateful to Israel. Just don't expect to hear much thanks.
