Yesterday, Israel launched a large-scale military operation known as Operation Rising Lion, targeting several key nuclear and military facilities deep within Iranian territory. These included uranium-enrichment centers at Natanz, ballistic missile stockpiles, and secret research reactors suspected of developing nuclear weapons capabilities. The Israeli Air Force deployed advanced F-35I Adir stealth jets and long-range drones to carry out precision strikes. Notably, the operation also resulted in the deaths of high-ranking Iranian military leaders, including Major General Hossein Salami and Major General Mohammad Bagheri, along with top nuclear scientists like Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi.

While Israeli officials framed the operation as a surgical effort to neutralize imminent threats, the reality on the ground was messy. Civilian casualties were reported—at least 78 dead and over 300 injured—triggering condemnation from various international bodies. Iran, unsurprisingly, responded with fierce rhetoric, calling the attack a war crime and promising “severe retaliation.” President Trump voiced strong support for Israel’s right to self-defense while emphasizing a desire for renewed diplomatic dialogue. Meanwhile, the United Nations, the IAEA, NATO, and several European nations called for immediate de-escalation and urged all parties to return to negotiations.

The Case for Preemption

From the perspective of Israeli leadership—and many of its allies—this was not a rash or impulsive attack, but a calculated and measured strike driven by the urgency of survival. Israel has long lived under the shadow of annihilation, with Iranian leaders consistently declaring their intent to obliterate the Jewish state. This is not mere political bluster; it’s ideology backed by action. For decades, Iran has poured billions into nuclear development while simultaneously arming and funding terrorist proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, both groups with blood on their hands and charters that deny Israel’s right to exist.

This operation was born out of a conviction that waiting any longer could prove catastrophic. According to Israeli intelligence sources, Tehran was weeks—perhaps even days—away from enriching enough weapons-grade uranium to produce a nuclear warhead. Under such circumstances, the argument goes, a preemptive strike was not only prudent but morally imperative. Prime Minister Netanyahu characterized the operation as “a strike of necessity, not choice,” reflecting the grim calculus that delay might result in national suicide.

What sets Operation Rising Lion apart from many historic military campaigns is its surgical precision. Israeli forces avoided broad-based bombing and instead honed in on specific targets: nuclear enrichment facilities, underground command bunkers, missile stockpiles, and key figures driving the nuclear program. Civilian infrastructure such as power plants, hospitals, and water systems were intentionally spared. This approach reveals a commitment not to destruction for its own sake, but to neutralizing threats with the lowest possible collateral damage.

The moral underpinning for such action resonates deeply with Christian values. While war is always tragic, Scripture recognizes the necessity of protecting the innocent and confronting evil when it threatens to consume the defenseless. Proverbs 24:11 exhorts us: “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain,” you are complicit in their demise. In this light, Israel’s actions can be viewed not as aggression, but as obedience to the God-given duty of national defense.

Moreover, by eliminating key architects of Iran’s nuclear apparatus, Israel may have achieved what years of sanctions and diplomacy could not: a genuine setback to Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb. The targeted killings of generals and nuclear scientists were undoubtedly controversial, but from a strategic standpoint, they may prove to be the linchpin that stalls Iran’s nuclear clock for years.

At its core, this was a move made by a nation that sees its back against the wall, a David against a nuclear Goliath. In a world where evil often masquerades as diplomacy, sometimes the only path to peace is paved by decisive action. Far from warmongering, this was a tragic but necessary blow struck in the name of preserving life.

Caution in the Shadow of Just War

While the case for Israel’s preemptive action is compelling from a security and moral standpoint, it would be intellectually dishonest—and spiritually irresponsible—not to consider the very real costs and consequences of such a high-stakes military gamble. Even the most ardent friends of Israel must pause and wrestle with what this operation has unleashed. Every bomb dropped, no matter how precisely guided, carries with it the potential to destroy more than steel and concrete, it can sever lives, scar communities, and ignite cycles of hatred that burn for generations.

Civilian casualties were, unfortunately, a grim reality of Operation Rising Lion. Though Israeli forces exercised remarkable restraint in sparing non-military infrastructure, the fog of war has no moral compass. Reports indicate that women, children, and ordinary Iranian citizens were caught in the crossfire. Romans 12:18 provides a sobering reminder: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” That verse wasn’t written with an asterisk; it applies even in times of conflict. As Christians, we are called not only to defend the innocent, but to lament every innocent life lost, regardless of nationality or ideology.

The danger now is not just what has happened, but what may yet come. Iran has already retaliated with waves of drones and missiles, and whispers of broader mobilization are echoing through the region. A full-scale regional war could be catastrophic. It could draw in the United States, involve Russia or China, and destabilize the Middle East at a time when global peace is already hanging by a thread. In the rush to strike first, Israel may have opened a door that no one will easily be able to close.

There’s also a strategic dilemma. While this operation may have bought Israel time, it did not destroy the underlying threat. Iran’s nuclear scientists, while targeted, are not irreplaceable. Knowledge cannot be bombed out of existence. And worse, this attack may harden Tehran’s resolve to obtain a nuclear weapon, not just as a deterrent, but now as a matter of national pride and revenge. There’s a grim irony here: what was meant to prevent nuclear escalation could end up accelerating it.

Additionally, by circumventing diplomatic avenues and launching a surprise offensive, Israel has risked undermining what little credibility remains in international efforts to regulate nuclear proliferation. Yes, many global institutions are flawed, and some are flat-out biased, but completely bypassing them can leave a country standing alone in a courtroom of world opinion. International isolation could make future diplomacy more difficult, not just for Israel but for its allies as well.

In short, while Israel acted out of a legitimate fear for its existence, that decision may come at a tremendous price. As a Christian conservative, I uphold the value of national defense, but I also recognize that justice without wisdom can become a blunt instrument. This strike may have been righteous in motive, but its ripple effects could create new storms in already troubled waters.

Walking the Line Between Justice and Peace

The situation we find ourselves in is one of moral complexity, a real-world test of our values in the midst of conflict. This isn’t about choosing sides blindly or waving anyone’s flag without discernment. It’s about weighing truth, justice, and mercy in a fallen world where the choices are often between bad and worse. In that context, Israel’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure wasn’t born of vengeance, but of necessity.

When a nation’s survival is on the line—especially one like Israel, surrounded by sworn enemies and targeted by a regime pursuing nuclear weapons—doing nothing isn’t an option. From a just war perspective, Israel’s actions align with the principle of legitimate defense. Waiting for the mushroom cloud to rise over Jerusalem isn’t nobility, it’s dereliction.

That said, the sword must always be wielded with sorrow, not satisfaction. Christ didn’t commission His followers to become warmongers, nor did He shy away from speaking truth to power. The challenge lies in holding both the sword of justice and the staff of the shepherd. “Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves,” Jesus said in Matthew 10:16. Wisdom demands action when a threat is imminent, but meekness reminds us that the goal of war—if it must be fought—is peace.

This is why Israel’s next steps are just as important as its initial strike. While the mission may have been justified, the aftermath must not devolve into a never-ending tit-for-tat with Tehran. Once the immediate threat is neutralized, the responsibility shifts to statesmanship. True strength lies not in permanent conflict but in knowing when to lay down the sword. That doesn’t mean trusting tyrants, it means creating conditions where peace is possible without surrendering righteousness.

As a Christian conservative, I affirm Israel’s right to exist, to defend itself, and to live without the constant threat of annihilation. But I also hold sacred the dignity of every human life: Jew and Arab, Persian and Palestinian alike. Every soul is created in the image of God, and our ultimate allegiance is to the Prince of Peace, not the politics of the moment.

So, here’s the bottom line: Israel’s actions were defensible, even moral. But let them be a means to an end, not the beginning of another endless war. Our prayer, as always, is for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6), a peace that is not blind to danger, but rooted in truth, justice, and mercy. And may that peace extend to all who now live under the threat of war, so that the sword may one day give way to the plowshare.