Operation “Rising Lion” marked a pivotal moment for Israel’s defense establishment, reasserting its position as a global leader in security innovation and technological prowess. In stark contrast to the unpreparedness and intelligence failures of October 7 - the worst disaster in Israel’s history - the campaign against Iran exemplified the power of initiative, advanced planning, and integrated capabilities. It reaffirmed the enduring relevance of Israel’s traditional security doctrine: short, decisive wars employing overwhelming force to secure clear strategic outcomes - even against a formidable adversary like Iran.
Over the past three decades, Israel has methodically built a military force rooted in advanced technology, spanning intelligence, airpower, missile defense, cyber, and AI. Operation "Rising Lion" showcased the payoff of that investment. The IDF achieved air superiority over the enemy’s capital 1,800 kilometers away, neutralized 85% of its surface-to-air missile batteries, and destroyed 50% of long-range missile launchers positioned deep within enemy territory. Most notably, 99% of the 1,000 UAVs launched at Israel were intercepted. These results were not merely tactical victories—they reflected a strategic synergy between innovation, precision, and operational discipline, setting a new standard for 21st-century warfare and restoring confidence in Israel’s deterrence posture.
Israel’s decision to launch a large-scale military operation against Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025 was not the product of a single moment, but rather a confluence of acute threat and extraordinary strategic opportunity. Intelligence findings indicated that Iran is renewing activities in weaponization groups which will enable it to incorporate the high enrich uranium in nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, Iran was expanding its missile arsenal at an accelerated pace and operationalizing its longstanding threats to Israel through concrete military plans—including cross-border infiltrations by proxy forces.
Yet, despite the growing risk, a rare window of Iranian vulnerability emerged. The “Ring of fire” Iran had constructed around Israel collapsed over the past year. Hezbollah - once the crown jewel of Tehran’s proxy strategy was defeated; The Assad regime in Syria, a critical link in Iran’s land bridge to Israel’s borders, collapsed, and Iranian air defenses suffered severe degradation following Israeli retaliation to the Iranian Ballistic missiles barrage in April and October 2024.
The political window of opportunity opened by the Trump administration - met with Iranian foot-dragging and set to close after 60 days - led to a clear understanding in Jerusalem that the convergence of circumstances signaled this was the right moment to strike.
Israel’s stated objectives were never to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear program, as such a goal would be unrealistic given its nature. The Iranian project, three decades in the making, was deliberately designed for resilience: dispersed, fortified, and deeply embedded. Unlike Iraq’s Osirak or Syria’s Al-Kibar facilities, Iran’s infrastructure cannot be reduced to rubble with a single strike.
Therefore, expectations of total kinetic destruction are not realistic. The objective was different: to roll back Iran’s nuclear progress, undermine its capabilities, and place it in a position of vulnerability - thereby creating conditions for a stronger, more enforceable agreement with strict oversight. At the same time, the operation served to demonstrate Israel’s determination and capability to act, while signaling firm American backing and a shared commitment to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Following a precise decapitation strike that eliminated dozens of senior IRGC commanders and about 20 key nuclear scientists, Israel gained full air superiority, dismantled Iranian air defenses, and struck major nuclear sites including Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak. Half of Iran's 450 launchers were destroyed, significantly reducing capacity to sustain ballistic missiles fire toward Israel, while Israel’s air defenses intercepted most incoming projectiles and drones. Despite some damage, the actual toll in Israel was far lower than even the most optimistic forecasts.
Israel deliberately refrained from striking the oil and gas industry in order to prevent a global crisis that could have redirected international criticism toward it - potentially intensifying diplomatic pressure and bringing the war to a premature end before its objectives were achieved. And while the collapse of the Iranian regime would be a welcome development from Israel’s perspective, regime change was never an explicit goal of the war. Israel avoided targeting political leadership in Tehran, recognizing that no pinpoint strike would topple the ayatollahs’ grip on power. Decades of failed attempts at external regime change have taught a sobering lesson: true transformation must come from within, driven by the Iranian people themselves.
With Israeli air dominance established, President Donald Trump made a bold and historic decision: to fulfill his predecessors’ promises that Iran would never go nuclear. In an unprecedented show of support, the U.S. joined not to save Israel from collapse, but to reinforce its success. Along with the B2 bombers striking Fordow, President Trump also delivered a clear diplomatic message: a call for Iran to refrain from retaliation and return to the negotiating table. From there, a ceasefire came swiftly.
For years, worst-case scenarios dominated discourse about a potential confrontation with Iran: fears of a third world war, regional conflagration, oil market collapse, global terror networks unleashed, U.S. forces in the Gulf under siege, or a drawn-out ground war. Yet when the time came, none of these nightmares materialized. Instead, Iran’s "house of cards" began to crumble. The operation exposed the gap between alarmist forecasts and ground reality: a well-planned and well-executed campaign can confront the Iranian threat without unleashing apocalyptic consequences.
While the operational triumph is already behind us, the true strategic and political victory still lies ahead. The only way to secure a long-term and stable resolution to the Iranian threat is to translate the impressive military gains achieved by Israel and the United States into a strong diplomatic agreement—one that ensures Iran will never be unable to acquire nuclear weapons.
Such a deal must go beyond the 2015 JCPOA. It must enforce the “gold standard”—no enrichment or plutonium production on Iranian soil, intrusive IAEA inspections, no sunset clauses, and significant restrictions on Iran’s missile and space programs.
Achieving this will require, above all, close U.S.-Israeli coordination, alongside the effective engagement of the UK, France, and Germany as JCPOA signatories with the authority to initiate the snapback mechanism. This should be complemented by consistent diplomatic pressure and the maintenance of a credible military threat.
Now, the ball is in Iran’s court, and it faces a range of options: it can return to the negotiating table or choose the path of escalation. If it opts to reengage in talks, it is crucial that Israel plays an active role in shaping the outcome to ensure that any agreement is tougher and more comprehensive. on the other side of the spectrum Iran could choose escalation—deciding to break out toward a nuclear weapon openly. Iran has already expelled IAEA inspectors from its territory, and should it withdraw from the NPT and enrich uranium to 90%, it would be a clear signal of that intent.
A possible alternative between these two is the option of strategic patience - prolonging negotiations to buy time, restoring its nuclear program within a “legitimate” framework, and waiting for a change in U.S. leadership in hopes of securing a more favorable deal.
If diplomacy fails, Israel and the US must establish an operational enforcement mechanism: real-time monitoring, defined red lines, and shared operational scenarios. It is important to recognize that the northern enforcement model applied against Hezbollah is not suitable in this context, as the operational implications and the need for US backing and support in Iran are fundamentally different from those in Lebanon.
As an historical lesson, Israel must avoid any sense of euphoria or premature triumph. Iran is already learning from recent events and adapting its strategy for the future. The aftermath of Operation “Guardian of the Walls” in 2021 demonstrated just how misleading early declarations of victory can be: at the time, many believed Hamas had been defeated, but in reality, it merely went underground and prepared its devastating attack.
The strategic lesson for Israel is clear: lasting security will not be achieved through isolated tactical gains, but through the formulation of a coherent long-term approach to the Iranian threat in all its forms. The recent clash demonstrated an extraordinary level of operational cooperation between Israel and the United States—this momentum should now be translated into sustained strategic coordination at the highest levels. By developing a shared, holistic strategic framework for addressing the Iranian challenge—across its military, nuclear, diplomatic, regional, and internal dimensions—Jerusalem and Washington can move beyond battlefield coordination toward a unified front grounded in long-term strategic vision.
In this context, Israel’s role as a “Start-Up Nation” extends beyond dual-use innovation into cutting-edge defense capabilities that enhance not only its own security, but also the strategic posture of its allies. The exceptional coordination demonstrated in the campaign should serve as a model for an upgraded U.S.-Israel partnership tailored to 21st-century threats—one that underscores Israel’s value as a strategic asset and reinforces American global leadership through strength, credibility, and enduring partnership.