Over the past few days, Israel has appeared at the center of three very different stories — security warnings abroad, reports of possible military action inside Iraq, and an Israeli-developed experimental vaccine against pneumonic plague.

First, Israeli media reported that Washington had given Israel a “green light” for air operations against Iran-aligned factions inside Iraq. That authorization has been reported by regional outlets citing Israeli sources, but it is not the same as confirmation that such strikes have already taken place. If attacks are eventually carried out without Baghdad’s consent, the obvious question is what remains of Iraqi sovereignty when another state can select and bomb targets inside Iraq.

Then came Russia. A 28-year-old employee of the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute died on October 2 from pneumonia of unknown origin, triggering quarantines and fears of pneumonic plague. But this part needs serious caution: Russia has not confirmed a plague outbreak, contacts tested negative for plague pathogens, and the WHO currently assesses the wider risk as very low.

And yes — Israeli scientists really have developed an experimental mRNA vaccine platform against pneumonic plague. Israel suddenly produced a “cure” after the Russian case appeared.

Finally, on October 6, Israel’s National Security Council warned Israelis and Jews abroad of an increased risk of attacks around the October 7 anniversary, specifically pointing to Iran, Hamas and global jihad organizations. Israelis abroad were advised to avoid demonstrations, conceal military-service information and exercise increased caution.

Put together, the headlines certainly invite uncomfortable questions: Why is Israel considering military action inside another sovereign state? Why is it issuing unusually prominent warnings about attacks abroad? And why does Israeli biological research suddenly appear in headlines surrounding a frightening Russian health incident?

That does not mean governments should escape scrutiny. Quite the opposite. Warnings, intelligence claims and military “green lights” should be questioned — especially when they can later be used to justify strikes, emergency measures or wider wars.

The questions are legitimate. The accusation still requires hard proof.