Israel’s preemptive strike on Iran revealed sharp political divisions both domestically and internationally, with broad Israeli unity contrasting starkly with Democratic opposition in the United States and widespread international condemnation.
Israeli Political Unity
Support for the preemptive attack came from across Israel’s political spectrum, demonstrating rare national unity in the face of existential threat. President Isaac Herzog quoted Psalms 18:37 in a post to X: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, I did not turn back till they were destroyed.” He added, “The security forces are acting with determination and responsibility to protect Israeli citizens. Please listen to the Home Front instructions — it saves lives.”
Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, typically critical of Netanyahu’s government, wrote that he “blesses the security forces and supports them and their action tonight to protect the security of Israel’s citizens.” Benny Gantz, leader of the opposition National Unity party, posted a prayer recited weekly in synagogues for the welfare of Israeli security forces, adding “we are all united against our enemies” and urging the public to obey instructions.
Even Yair Golan, leader of the opposition Democrats party who recently criticized IDF actions in Gaza, expressed support: “A strong people, a determined army and a home front behind them, that is how we were always victorious, and that is how we will win today.”
Israeli-American philosopher Yoram Hazony praised President Trump’s support, writing on Twitter: “Anyone saying this attack is an affront to the United States is serving Iranian regime propaganda, whether out of gullibility or malice. Israelis love the United States and especially revere President Trump and his administration. No one has been better to us than President Trump.”
Hazony continued: “President Trump understands what some clearly do not: That it is Israel’s responsibility to protect its people against a fanatical regime that has sought to destroy us using every means at its disposal. We are all of us brothers in a war against forces that openly and shamelessly seek our annihilation.”
Trump Administration Support
The Trump administration maintained supportive yet cautious positioning on Israel’s operation. US President Donald Trump was asked by reporters what he was doing to lower the escalating tensions, and answered that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon. Very simple. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. We’re not going to allow that.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that Israel took “unilateral action against Iran,” clarifying that the US was not directly involved while warning Tehran against targeting American interests.
“Our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for their self-defense,” Rubio stated. “President Trump and the administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”
Democratic Opposition Emerges
Several prominent Democrats strongly criticized Israel’s action, reflecting a pattern of opposition that has characterized the party’s approach to Israeli defense operations. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the strikes “a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.”
Senator Chris Murphy went further, claiming “Israel’s attack on Iran, clearly intended to scuttle the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America and is further evidence of how little respect world powers — including our own allies — have for President Trump.”
This opposition reflects a broader pattern among progressive Democrats who have consistently criticized Israeli military actions. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Senator Bernie Sanders have repeatedly condemned Israeli operations, often characterizing defensive actions as aggression and calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.
Historical Context: Democratic Iran Policy
The current crisis has roots in previous Democratic administrations’ policies toward Iran. President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provided Iran with sanctions relief worth over $100 billion while allowing the regime to maintain its nuclear infrastructure. The agreement’s sunset clauses would have permitted Iran to legally pursue nuclear weapons within a decade, while immediate sanctions relief enabled the regime to fund proxy forces throughout the region.
The Obama administration’s approach effectively revived Iran’s economy and enhanced its regional influence, providing resources that Iran used to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. This policy laid the groundwork for the current conflict, as Iran used its enhanced capabilities to orchestrate the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
The Biden administration continued this approach, seeking to re-enter the JCPOA and providing Iran with additional sanctions relief. Simultaneously, the administration pressured Israel to limit its military responses to Iranian aggression, constraining Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon while Iran’s proxies continued their attacks.
International Condemnation
The international response was largely critical, with allies expressing concern about escalation. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the strikes “concerning” and urged “all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority.”
Japan “strongly condemned” the strikes, with Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya stating: “We strongly condemn the latest action that escalates the situation. Peace and stability in the Middle East region are extremely important to Japan, and we urge all parties involved to exercise the utmost restraint.”
Australia expressed alarm at the escalation, with Foreign Minister Penny Wong warning that the strikes “risk further destabilizing a region that is already volatile.” However, she acknowledged “the threat that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program represents to international peace and security.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called it “a really unwelcome development in the Middle East,” warning that “the risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action.”
UN Response
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged both Israel and Iran to “show maximum restraint,” with particular concern about strikes on nuclear installations amid ongoing US-Iran negotiations. The UN statement noted that the region “can hardly afford” a descent into deeper conflict.
The political divisions revealed by Israel’s operation reflect broader disagreements about how to address the Iranian threat, with supporters viewing the strikes as necessary preemptive defense and critics warning of dangerous escalation. These divisions will likely shape the international response to Iran’s expected retaliation and the broader regional conflict.
