The story of Balaam the prophet is famous among Christians for the episode of the talking donkey. But Jews remember it for another reason: it’s the story of a Gentile prophet hired by a Gentile king to curse the Israelites, only to have the curses turn into blessings on his lips—not just once or twice, but thrice.
And the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth…
Balaam’s failed curses symbolize the nations’ futile attempts to eradicate a people selected by God for a special destiny—a stubborn, stiff-necked, and indestructible people—which is why, when the time came to choose the name of a daring military strike on Iran, the Israel Defense Forces lifted a Hebrew term from Balaam’s first prophecy: am ke-lavi (עם כלביא), or “lion-like nation.” Given the scope of the strike and the risks involved, this term—officially translated as “Rising Lion” in English—was a perfect fit.
Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain. (Numbers 23:24)
The details are still coming out, but the audacity of the operation is unmistakable: a complex strike on dozens of targets ranging from nuclear and military infrastructure to top military leaders like Major General Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard. “We struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program…,” Prime Minister Netanyahu said in an English language video. “We targeted Iran’s main enrichment facility at Natanz. We targeted Iran’s leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran’s ballistic missile program.”
Time will tell whether the damage is extensive enough to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions; at this point, the operation is still ongoing. Calling it a “decisive moment in our history,” Netanyahu vowed to continue the strikes as long as it takes.
The Trump administration initially went out of its way to disclaim any connection to the attack. Hours beforehand, Trump hinted that a strike “could very well happen” but advised against it, since a US-Iran deal was “fairly close.” It could spark a “massive conflict,” he warned. If there was any doubt about Trump’s position, Secretary of State Marco Rubio came out immediately to say that Israel had taken “unilateral action” and that America wasn’t involved.
By the next morning, however, with evidence of the damage now visible, Trump changed his tone, lauding the strike and warning Iran’s leaders to make a deal “before there is nothing left.” Posting on Truth Social, Trump pointed out that the attack came one day after the expiration of the 60-day period he had given Iran’s leaders to conclude a new nuclear agreement—an announcement he had made on April 12. Subsequent reports posit that Trump’s earlier reticence, including his reported urgings that Netanyahu hold off on a military strike, were all part of an elaborate ruse.
Shaking his fist in a bunker somewhere, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that Israel will face “severe punishment.” Presumably, the US will work with Israel and other allies to deflect an Iranian counterstrike. Given the smoldering state of Iran’s military, it’s not clear how effective a counterstrike will be, but Israeli officials have instructed citizens to prepare for one anyway.
Given America’s superior power and direct interests, Trump’s reluctance to lead may seem odd given his previous track record—but it fits a larger pattern. Successive US presidents have been unwilling to confront the Islamic theocracy directly, preferring drawn-out negotiations and finger-wagging to kinetic action. Fears of escalation and “wider war” have loomed large in American minds since at least George W. Bush, even though the Islamic Republic has been waging unprovoked wars against America, Israel, and Arab states in the name of an apocalyptic ideology it wants to export to the world. These wars have caused immense suffering, but Americans have mostly tried to look the other way.
Israel hasn’t had the luxury of that position, knowing that military power alone keeps the ayatollahs and their proxies from overrunning the Jewish state. Having lopped off or wounded Iranian tentacles in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, the IDF finally decided to strike the head of the octopus when intelligence revealed that Iranian scientists were advancing their nuclear weapons program behind the scenes—and when America, even Trump’s America, dragged its feet.
This isn’t the first time Israel finds itself in such a position. In the 1980s, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a secret nuclear weapons program; in the 2000s, it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In both cases a US president demurred, and in both cases an Israeli prime minister took matters into his own hands. Looking back, one can only imagine the disasters averted as a result.
Thankfully, the Trump administration, though unwilling to lead the charge, appears committed to seeing it through. Certainly the second-best way to prevent foreign wars is to help trusted allies stop unrepentant warmongers when the moral and strategic analysis is clear. (Even better to take the lead ourselves.) Given the ayatollahs’ long rap sheet of religious terrorism, human rights abuses (including against their own citizens), and attempts to attain a nuclear bomb, the analysis here couldn’t be clearer. Decades of active effort to destroy Israel and destabilize the Near East means that every missile and drone directed against the Islamic Republic’s war machine is justified.
Once again, Israel made a decision no one wanted to make. The cost may be high—the next few weeks will be fraught for Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis alike—but this nation of lions decided, and should be commended on behalf of us all.
