In a night fraught with tension, Israel’s robust air defense systems—developed over three decades — were put to the ultimate test. Systems such as Iron Dome, David's Sling, and the Arrow series, with the help of the United States, Britain, France, and Jordan Air forces, successfully intercepted 99% of the 185 suicide drones and 146 missiles launched in a coordinated Iranian assault.
This event demonstrated technological prowess and validated a vision akin to Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative: crafting an impenetrable missile defense umbrella, a vision now vividly realized by Israel.
Yet, this tactical triumph starkly contrasts with the strategic and moral failures emerging from the U.S. response. Just as Israel was counting its minimal casualties and assessing the night’s defense, briefings from the White House suggested efforts to restrain Israel’s right to retaliate. It appears President Biden’s cautionary stance to ‘de-escalate’ global conflicts paradoxically applies to Israel’s legitimate defense measures as much as it does to Iranian aggression.
This policy shift exposes a more profound moral crisis within U.S. foreign policy. Today's postmodern ethics, which increasingly dictate containment, focus predominantly on the body count to assess the justness of a nation's actions. This metric has disturbing implications: it implies that Israel’s legitimacy to strike back is contingent upon the failure of its missile defenses — effectively, that only dead Jews can justify an Israeli counterattack. Consequently, Iran’s clear intent to harm goes unaddressed as long as their attacks yield insufficient Israeli casualties.
The horrifying implication of this approach is the normalization of genocide against the Jewish state. Over the past decade, tens of thousands of missiles have targeted Israeli civilians, yet the international expectation is for Israel to contain this aggression. This policy not only demands Israel to manage the symptoms of this existential threat but insists on doing so while under constant psychological and physical siege.
By adhering to a morality of outcomes rather than a morality of intentions, U.S. policy fails to hold aggressors like Iran accountable for their actions, demanding instead that Israel proves its victimhood through casualties to gain moral standing and operational latitude. The October 7th massacre is a grim preview of potential future conflicts if this policy persists.
Israel must not just defend itself but to react to overwhelming attacks. If the international community continues to bind Israel’s hands, demanding disproportionate restraint in the face of existential threats, it does not just fail Israel—it fails the very principles of justice and peace it purports to uphold.
Comments