Michael Byers’ June 16 column in The Globe and Mail entitled: “Israel has the right of self-defence. That’s not the end of the matter,” is yet another entry in a long line of opinion pieces that reflexively question Israel’s motives, legitimacy, and intelligence in Canada’s newspaper of record. Though couched in the language of legal nuance and international norms, the column did more to cast aspersions on Israel than to offer meaningful insight into a deeply layered and dangerous geopolitical moment.

Byers opened by acknowledging that “every country has the right of self-defence,” including, presumably, Israel. He even invoked the classic formulation of pre-emptive self-defence: that there be a “necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Yet the bulk of the piece was spent arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites—somehow fail this test, not based on facts, but on inference, insinuation, and conveniently edited narratives.

The commentary quoted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) own statement decrying Iran’s “many failures to uphold its obligations” and its inability “to verify that there has been no diversion of nuclear material … to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” That sounds like exactly the sort of red flag that would justify concern from a state like Israel, which has been explicitly threatened with total annihilation by the Iranian regime for decades. Yet rather than treat this as a serious security issue, Byers swiftly pivoted to citing a 1981 UN Security Council condemnation of Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor—as if that condemnation somehow invalidates the action in hindsight.

Iraq never got the nuclear bomb – probably precisely because of that intervention. Byers can’t then cite the lack of a bomb and cry overreaction, when the reason there’s no bomb is that reaction. It’s infantile logic.

From there, Byers attempted to draw a tortured parallel to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, writing, “The Bush administration invoked pre-emptive self-defence to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.” But Israel is not the United States. Israel is not invading Iran. Israel is not occupying Iran. Israel is not utilizing dubious intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to topple a regime they don’t like. Israel is targeting specific nuclear and military sites tied to a terrorist regime that has pledged to annihilate it. That’s not imperial adventurism—it’s survival.

Byers invoked U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 report, cherry-picking a single line: “We assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Khamenei] has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” That quote is accurate—but incomplete. In the same testimony, Gabbard also warned: “in the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”

That last line, “unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons,” is not reassurance. That’s a red siren.

The IAEA itself confirmed that Iran has amassed over 400 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium—almost double the amount it had six months earlier. This is “mere steps from reaching the 90 percent threshold for weaponization,” according to the commander of the US Central Command. Should Tehran decide to sprint, it could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in under a week. That’s the context Byers conveniently omitted.

In fact, Gabbard herself reiterated on June 17 that “the president was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March,” adding pointedly, “unfortunately, too many people in the media don’t care to actually read what I said.”

Finally, the predictable moral inversion. Byers argued that if Israel’s initial strike were illegal, “Iran had every right to exercise its right of self-defence in response.” He went so far as to suggest that it’s Israel’s fault for continuing hostilities, because it “is now targeting oil and gas facilities in an apparent attempt to cripple Iran’s economy.” Apparently, in Byers’ view, a state under attack from missile salvos should take a time-out and enter negotiations with the regime launching them.

This is not the first time Michael Byers has used the gloss of legal commentary to cast Israel as the primary culprit in a regional conflict. His writing consistently frames Israel’s actions as dangerous, illegal, or disproportionate—no matter the provocation, no matter the stakes.

Israel has the right to defend itself. That is not the end of the matter, true—but it is, emphatically, the beginning. And until writers like Byers can acknowledge that basic reality without hedging, qualifying, or backpedalling, their commentary will remain more about undermining Israel than enlightening readers.