Binyamin Netanyahu is the big winner from the Iran war, for now

A GREAT gamble is under way in Iran. The stakes are daunting for the Iranian people, the wider Middle East and the world. There may be many losers, starting with ordinary Iranians.

In these uncertain first days, an early winner stands out, though: Israel. The Iran campaign relies on American firepower. But to a striking degree, it is shaped by Israeli theories of war. Israel’s rules for victory can be summarised as: attack without warning, use overwhelming force and do not scruple to kill an enemy’s leaders. Of course Israel believes in international law, the country’s politicians and diplomats insist. But as a small democracy in a dangerous neighbourhood, Israel must put security first. Israeli officials argue that they observe the rules of war—in contrast to the terrorists who deserve no tears or pity. In spite of this, the long campaign and huge death toll in Gaza have left Israel increasingly isolated, even among once-supportive Western governments. Suddenly, though, many democratic leaders sound more accepting of Israeli-style arguments.

When America and Israel jointly attacked Iran on February 28th, key elements of the operation reflected an Israeli logic, starting with the killing of Iran’s top leaders. That marks a change for America. In his first term a risk-averse President Donald Trump disagreed when Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, urged him to seek regime change in Iran. Now calling for a popular uprising against tyranny strikes Mr Trump as a good look, at least. When Mr Trump urges ordinary Iranians to rise up, he is echoing long-standing Netanyahu talking points—even if, just as often, America’s president sounds open to cutting a deal with a turncoat from Iran’s ruling elite.

Soon after attacks on Iran began, Mr Trump’s Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, praised Israel as a capable partner that brought a clear mission to the Iran fight, “unlike so many of our traditional allies, who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force”. Not for the first time Mr Hegseth, a preening culture warrior, is missing the bigger picture.

True, a few American partners have been wary of joining the Iran operation. Britain’s prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, initially declined to let America use British bases. He has since allowed British bases to be used for “defensive” strikes against Iranian forces that menace neighbouring countries. Sir Keir is a former human-rights lawyer and, as it happens, an inveterate hand-wringer. To his credit he has voiced his government’s principled opposition to the notion of “regime change from the skies”. Yet his brief defiance of Mr Trump is best explained by his tenuous hold on the leadership of the Labour Party, which is full of Israel critics and leftists who have not forgiven Tony Blair for joining America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. The fragility of Spain’s left-leaning coalition government also helps explain why that country has barred American jets from using Spanish bases to reach Iran. Mr Trump has now threatened a ban on American trade with Spain. These local dramas are a side-show. It is more revealing to ask why other Western governments say they back Mr Trump’s fight with Iran.

Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, offered a masterclass in bleak realism on March 1st. Calling it pointless to debate the legality of strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other high-ups, Mr Merz catalogued reasons not to mourn their “regime of terror”, from its oppression of Iran’s people to its support for Hamas and Hizbullah and its nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes. Regime change is risky, Mr Merz conceded. But Germany will not criticise American and Israeli strikes. For one thing, European governments spent years condemning Iran for breaking international rules but failed to back those judgments with military force, the chancellor noted. For another, Europe needs America’s help to defend Ukraine. “Therefore, this is not the time to lecture our partners and allies. Despite our reservations, we share many of their goals without being able to actually achieve them ourselves,” he declared. Mr Merz’s admission follows another that he made last summer, after Israel and America bombed Iranian nuclear sites. Israel deserves thanks for doing the world’s “dirty work”, he suggested back then.

The governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand do not go that far. But all have offered support for strikes on Iran. Khamenei’s passing “will not be mourned”, said Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister. At first France expressed concerns about the operation in Iran, and called for the UN Security Council to weigh in. The tone in Paris hardened after Iranian drones hit a French base in the Gulf. In a joint statement with Britain and Germany, France now pledges to help destroy Iran’s missile and drone capabilities.

Nor is it the first sighting of allies trying to see an upside in a Trumpian intervention. After America captured Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, in January the French president, Emmanuel Macron, said that his country did not support the method used, but dubbed Mr Maduro a dictator whose departure was “good news for Venezuelans”. From Iran to Venezuela, big precedents are being set without much debate. China, for instance, considers many democratically elected Taiwanese politicians to be criminal separatists. Are they now fair game for killing or capture?

Terrible arguments divided the West before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At least they were born of attempts by President George W. Bush to secure UN backing for his war. Today’s America seeks no such mandates before it acts. A might-makes-right order is taking shape, one which Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu navigate with ease. Most Western allies never wished for this world. Now that it is arriving, they are having to adapt to its rules. ■