Why Israel will always act alone when needed to defend itself - analysis
The Begin Doctrine, created after Israel's strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, commits Israel to preventing any enemy state from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Two days after Israel's strike against Iraq’s nuclear reactor in Osirak in 1981, then-prime minister Menachem Begin held a press conference and said: “Another Holocaust would have happened in the history of the Jewish people. Never again, never again! Tell so [to] your friends, tell anyone you meet – we shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal. We shall not allow any enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction turned against us.”
Thus was born what has become known as the Begin Doctrine, a doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” grounded in the belief that waiting until a threat is imminent could be too late for Israel’s survival.
Under this doctrine, Israel commits to preventing any enemy state that seeks its destruction from obtaining nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
That doctrine was behind then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s decision in 2007 to bomb Syria’s nuclear reactor. And as IDF Spokesman Brig.-Gen. Effie Defrin made clear on Friday, it was also behind Israel’s attack that morning.
According to Defrin, Iran was on the cusp not only of acquiring the material needed for a nuclear bomb but also of mastering how to weaponize it. It was also intent on doubling and tripling its ballistic missile arsenal. The subtext was unmistakable: Israel believed it had to act.
The answer, in essence, is that he felt he had no other choice.
For nearly three decades, Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have vowed that Israel would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
Various efforts were made to prevent that outcome – scientists were assassinated, and operations similar to the one carried out against Hezbollah in Lebanon – using exploding pagers – were directed at Iran.
In one tactic, straw companies were established around the world to sell Iran defective components for its nuclear program. The goal was to ensure that when Iran spun its centrifuges, they would malfunction or explode. Additionally, cyber attacks like Stuxnet were deployed.
All of this was meant to set back the program. It was an effort to buy time amid the hope that in the meantime, either Iran might reconsider the cost, sanctions might change its calculations, or there would be a regime change.
None of that happened. Iran marched forward with its program.
That Israel acted Friday morning, sending over 200 planes to carry out an attack that was meticulously planned months, and even years, in advance, is an indicator that it felt it had no choice, that its back was against the wall, and that it was either now or never.
This represents another long-standing principle of Israeli policy, one that predates the state’s founding: that when Israel believes its very existence is at stake, it will act – regardless of American opposition or international outcry.
David Ben-Gurion embodied this when he declared statehood in 1948, despite fierce opposition from the US State Department. He believed the moment was now – or it might never come again.
The same logic drove Levi Eshkol to launch a preemptive strike against Egypt in June 1967.
Faced with Arab threats of annihilation, Egypt’s closure of the Straits of Tiran, and the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers, Eshkol felt Israel’s survival was on the line.
Even as US president Lyndon Johnson warned that if Israel acted alone, it would have to stand alone, Eshkol moved forward: He believed there was no alternative.
Israel acts even when facing US opposition
Likewise, in 1981, when Begin acted against the Iraqi reactor, he was well aware of president Ronald Reagan’s opposition, and the US voted for a UN Security Council resolution a few days later condemning Israel’s unilateral strike. But, as he laid out in that Tel Aviv press conference, he felt Israel had no choice and was facing an existential threat.Olmert made a similar calculation in 2007, rejecting president George W. Bush’s advice to leave the Syrian reactor issue to the UN. He believed time was not on Israel’s side.
Now, Netanyahu has done the same.
After years of attempting to contain Iran through sanctions, sabotage, diplomacy, and covert operations, Israel acted, believing Iran was nearing the point of no return of not just acquiring bomb-making material but also the capacity to mount and deliver a weapon.
Will this attack destroy Iran’s nuclear program?
It’s too early to say. But will it set it back? Undoubtedly. Beyond the tactical impact, the message to the world is unmistakable: when Israel genuinely believes its security is on the line, it acts – whatever the risks.
