The destruction of the three Iranian nuclear sites by the United States tonight represents a decisive step towards global security. It is an action that marks a clear dividing line between those who defend freedom and those who, masquerading behind words like ‘peace’ and ‘diplomacy’, all too often end up playing into the hands of the aggressors. In the last few hours we have seen marches, appeals, rainbow sheets waved in the streets against Israeli-American intervention, against European rearmament, against the only real instrument that democracies have to defend themselves. And we must make it clear: all this does not contribute in any way to peace. On the contrary, it encourages the aggressiveness of the autocrats and fuels the race for new conflicts.

History, unfortunately, repeats itself. Generations change, but pacifists always seem to be the same: in 1938, they rejoiced at the Munich Accords, giving Hitler the time and consent to arm and ravage Europe; in the 1980s, they took to the streets against the installation of Euro-missiles, leaving Europe vulnerable to the Soviet threat; today, they oppose the strengthening of European defence, just as we face an era of global instability in which Europe can no longer afford to be naive or unarmed. There is a common thread running through all these seasons: the inability to recognise where the threat lies. And that blindness has always come at a price.

The Iranian nuclear programme is not just a foreign policy dossier: it is a real, immediate and destabilising threat to the entire Middle East. It does not only concern Israel, although Israel is its most direct target. It also concerns the Arab peoples, threatened by Iran’s military projection through Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. Above all, it concerns the Iranian people, who for decades have lived under a theocratic and authoritarian regime, which represses all forms of dissent, denies fundamental rights to women, and invests in weapons and militias while millions of citizens sink into poverty.

The US-led action is not a declaration of war: it is an act of deterrence, containment and responsibility. Dismantling the nuclear infrastructure of a regime that has made aggression and destabilisation a doctrine is a necessary step to avoid an arms race in the region. It is, paradoxically, an act of peace. For there is no peace possible without security. And there is no security possible as long as the Iranian regime aims to acquire the atomic weapon.

Of course, politics must resume its role. The phase following this military action must be that of relaunching dialogue. It is time to revive the Abrahamic Accords, to build new relations between Israel and the Arab world, to work concretely for a negotiated and sustainable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A solution that envisages two states for two peoples, within secure and recognised borders, with full sovereignty and equal dignity. But this horizon is not possible today as long as a regional actor like Iran sows war and destruction on several fronts.

We are at a crossroads. On the one hand there are democracies, which struggle but resist, question and correct themselves. On the other side are regimes that do not tolerate dissent, that arm fanatics, that threaten the existence of entire peoples. Taking sides should not be difficult. Instead, a part of public opinion continues to fall into the trap of a blind, ideological pacifism, incapable of reading reality.

Peace is not the absence of war. It is the construction of a just order. And to be just, an order must be defensible.