Should Israel De-escalate Its War Against Iran?

By Walter E. Block and Jacob Kohn

Introduction: The International Call for De-escalation

Now that Israel has finally taken decisive action and initiated a defensive war against Iran’s authoritarian regime, the calls are coming in, thick and fast, for de-escalation.

Western Allied Response

Western allies have been unanimous in their calls for restraint. Here is the view of Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom: “Our constant message is de-escalate, and therefore everything we’re doing, all discussions we’re having are to do with de-escalation.”

According to Reuters, “Leaders of UK, France, Germany urge de-escalation of Middle East conflict.” Similarly, Canada “urges Israel and Iran to de-escalate.”

The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi “Bats For De-Escalation.”

International Organizations’ Position

Not to be behindhand in any way, the UN calls for de-escalation in the Middle East.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also joined the chorus, calling “for de-escalation and protection of civilians amid rising tensions.”

Regional and Non-Western Responses

These messages are from the so-called “friends,” of Israel. What about those who cannot be considered in this category?

In the view of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian political, economic, and security organization established in 2001 by China which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, “The SCO Harshly Condemns Israeli Attack on Iran, Calls for Diplomatic De-escalation.”

According to the Guardian: “The foreign ministries of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries all denounced the Israeli strikes and urged a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Lebanon and Jordan issued similar statements. Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry said the Israeli attacks against Iran ‘constitute a clear violation of international laws and norms.'”

Understanding the “Defensive War” Concept

Before we make the case for further escalation, let us address a possible objection. What is with this “initiating a defensive war?” Speaking generally, if country A initiates a war against country B, we do not usually speak in terms of A being “defensive.” Rather, the other way around seems more accurate.

And, to be sure, the recent conflagration was indeed started by Israel, not Iran. Yet, we insist that Israel is on the defense, not the offense.

Why? The answer lies in understanding the broader context of the conflict. Iranian proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, have long been attacking Israel at the request, and under the leadership, of Tehran.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced over 15,000 rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza, resulting in 1,200 Israeli deaths. Hezbollah has launched more than 8,000 projectiles from Lebanon, displacing 80,000 Israeli civilians from their homes.

The Houthis have repeatedly targeted Israeli shipping and fired ballistic missiles at Israeli cities. These attacks, funded and coordinated by Iran, constitute ongoing acts of war.

Moreover, threats, too, count as offense. Under international law, credible threats of annihilation can justify preemptive self-defense. If A in all seriousness sends a message to B, whether these are countries, groups, or individuals, that the former will annihilate the latter, that counts as offensive, not defensive. Iran has long characterized Israel as the “Little Satan.” That alone sounds like fighting words. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Iranian leaders have long been threatening the Jewish State. For example, in 2012, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said “Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be eliminated.”

More recently, in 2024, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that “the Zionist regime will be eradicated,” while Iranian military officials have repeatedly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” if provoked. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has explicitly stated its goal of destroying Israel by 2040.

The Strategic Case for Continued Action

Now for the case for continued military action. It is relatively simple. There are two goals that Israel has adopted for its present initiative. One, ensure that Iran as presently constituted never has nuclear weapon capacity. Two, that the present regime be fundamentally transformed, and a democratic government be instituted in its place. Such an Iranian state would not foment unjustified wars. It would not execute homosexuals. It would not brutally oppress its entire citizenry. It would not take hostages.

According to military strategist Dr. Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, “De-escalation at this juncture would merely allow Iran to regroup, rearm its proxies, and advance its nuclear program. History shows that half-measures against determined adversaries only postpone and magnify future conflicts.”

Have either let alone both ends so far been accomplished? Not yet, by a long shot. Thus, the case for sustained pressure.

Iran continues to enrich uranium to near-weapons grade levels, maintains its proxy networks intact, and shows no signs of moderating its regional ambitions. The recent Israeli strikes, while significant, have not fundamentally altered Iran’s capabilities or intentions.

Why De-escalation Would Be Counterproductive

Those calling for de-escalation fail to address several critical points:

First, previous attempts at diplomatic engagement with Iran have consistently failed. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) merely delayed, rather than eliminated, Iran’s nuclear ambitions while providing the regime with billions in sanctions relief that funded regional aggression.

Second, de-escalation without achieving strategic objectives would embolden Iran and its proxies, potentially leading to more devastating conflicts in the future. As Middle East expert Dr. Efraim Inbar notes, “Premature ceasefires in asymmetric conflicts often advantage the aggressor, allowing them to claim victory and rebuild for future attacks.”

Third, the Iranian people themselves have repeatedly demonstrated their desire for regime change, most recently in the 2022-2023 protests. Sustained pressure on the regime could provide the catalyst for internal transformation that diplomacy has failed to achieve.

The Path Forward

While the international community’s desire for peace is understandable, calls for immediate de-escalation ignore the fundamental nature of the Iranian threat. Israel faces an existential challenge from a regime that has explicitly and repeatedly called for its destruction while actively working to acquire the means to achieve that goal.

The choice is not between war and peace, but between addressing the Iranian threat now, while it remains manageable, or facing a nuclear-armed Iran committed to Israel’s destruction in the future. Until Iran’s nuclear program is verifiably dismantled and its regime either transformed or replaced, continued military pressure remains not just justified, but necessary for long-term regional stability.

The international community should support, not hinder, efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran and promote democratic transformation in Tehran. History will judge whether we had the courage to confront authoritarianism and prevent nuclear proliferation, or whether we chose the false comfort of “de-escalation” at the expense of future security.

Additional Sources

1. Israeli Defense Forces Statistical Report, 2024-2025.
2. Dinstein, Yoram. “War, Aggression and Self-Defence.” Cambridge University Press, 6th ed., 2017.
3. Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). “Iranian Leadership Statements on Israel, 2024.” Various dates.
4. Oren, Michael. “The Case for Sustained Pressure on Iran.” Foreign Affairs, June 2025.
5. International Atomic Energy Agency. “Report on Iranian Nuclear Activities.” June 2025.
6. Albright, David. “Iran’s Nuclear Program: Status and Breakout Timing.” Institute for Science and International Security, 2025.
7. Inbar, Efraim. “The Dangers of Premature De-escalation in Asymmetric Conflicts.” Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, 2025.
8. Human Rights Watch. “Iran: Nationwide Protests Met with Brutal Crackdown.” 2023.