On June 13th, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, its most expansive and ambitious attack on Iranian soil and the largest assault on Iranian territory since the 1980’s Iran-Iraq War. Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) chief of staff described the operation as a ‘point of no return.’ Israel justified the operation with the need to ‘roll back’ the Iranian threat to Israel’s survival saying it was pre-empting what it alleges was an imminent nuclear threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the operation would continue ‘for as many days at it takes to remove this threat.’ The implications of the conflict for Israel, Iran, and the broader Middle East are profound. Both Israel and Iran have claimed victory, and the recently agreed ceasefire is considered fragile, with fears remaining that this conflict may expand further if the ceasefire does not hold.

Operation Rising Lion

The operation primarily targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, military and intelligence command, and scientific personnel. Israel damaged the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites, but did not appear to target the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, buried deeply within a mountain, making it highly resistant to conventional airstrikes. Israeli officials acknowledged the importance of neutralizing Fordow to fully cripple Iran’s nuclear program, but this required direct United States assistance. Operation Rising Lion also systematically eliminated Iran’s top military leaders, severely weakening Iran’s armed forces and jeopardizing its response, and targeted and killed more than a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists.

The operation showed the superiority of Israel’s military planning and intelligence capabilities, with the initial attacks indicating that Israel had deeply infiltrated Iran. Israeli commandos were pre-positioned in Iran, having smuggled in drones that were assembled and deployed within the country to destroy air defense targets. The success of the first waves of air attacks helped Israel assert aerial supremacy over Iran four days into the campaign. After establishing air supremacy, Israel focused on Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities, which it sees as the country’s last conventional deterrent. The operation was also a synchronized campaign combining airpower, human intelligence, and psychological operations. Mossad reportedly penetrated Iran’s military and nuclear circles and lured key individuals into facilities that were then destroyed.

Why did Israel attack Iran now?

Israel considers Iran’s regime acquiring nuclear weapons an existential threat, with the regime having publicly declared their intent to destroy Israel. Netanyahu said that Iran could have produced a nuclear weapon within weeks, perhaps days, were it not stopped. The operation came as US-Iran nuclear talks appeared to have stalled, and a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that Iran was in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. The IAEA estimated that the country had enriched enough uranium for nine nuclear bombs, while Israel’s intelligence estimated that it had enough uranium to produce up to 15 nuclear bombs and believes that some of the key uranium enrichment equipment was about to be moved deeper underground, making it harder to target.

Iran has also never looked weaker, with its air defenses already compromised from Israel’s attacks in October 2024, and Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance,’ weakened by Israel during the nearly 21 months of war on multiple fronts. Israel likely considered the geopolitical climate to be reasonably favorable and leveraged this window of opportunity. However, the operation had broader objectives beyond targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. It likely also aimed to destabilize the foundations of Iran’s regime; Netanyahu wants a weakened Iran that is forced into fundamental concessions, such as permanently abandoning its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and its support for proxies.

While many in Israel distrust Netanyahu, seeing him as focused on saving himself from being held accountable for the failures in connection with Hamas’ attack on October 7th, 2023, the campaign against Iran has drawn support from across the political spectrum, including from his political rivals. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, who has criticized Netanyahu’s leadership during the war in Gaza, rallied behind the operation, stating that it was the right course of action despite his political differences with Netanyahu. This shift in perception may have also helped Netanyahu redeem his reputation in Israel.

US involvement in the Israel-Iran war

While official US statements denied US involvement in Israel’s initial operation, US President Donald Trump claimed publicly that he was aware of ‘everything.’ According to some media reports, Israeli officials have said that Trump and other US officials publicly faked opposition to Israel’s operation as part of a coordinated strategy to deceive Iran into thinking that an attack was not imminent. The US became directly involved on June 22nd, 2025, two days after Trump had publicly stated that he would make a decision within two weeks, when seven B-2 stealth bombers used fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators to strike the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump described the strikes as a ‘spectacular military success,’ claiming that the strikes had ‘completely and totally obliterated’ the facilities. However, preliminary US intelligence assessments, including a report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), indicated that the strikes set the nuclear program back by only a few months, and Israel claims to have evidence that the facilities at one site were not destroyed.

Trump has since urged Iran to ‘come to peace,’ while also hinting at the possibility of regime change. Trump also alluded to the possibility of future attacks, warning that they would be ‘far greater’ unless Iran reached a diplomatic solution and surrender. On June 25th, 2025, while attending the NATO summit, Trump indicated that the US could strike Iran again if the country attempts to rebuild its nuclear program. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected Trump’s call for surrender and is likely to consider Trump’s diplomatic efforts to be a deception.

Implications for Iran

Israel’s strikes destroyed Iran’s air defenses, damaged its command-and-control infrastructure, and decapitated its key military leadership. The effectiveness of Israel’s initial strikes may partly be attributed to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) minimizing its weaknesses in reports to Iran’s leadership, with the IRGC reportedly reassuring political leadership that its air defenses could withstand an Israeli strike. Iran responded with waves of drone and missile attacks on Israel; while also claiming it is reserving its most advanced hypersonic missiles in the event of further escalation. Iran’s choices were also limited; further attacks on US bases in the Middle East would trigger major US retaliation, and closing the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway for a fifth of global oil traffic, would have upset Arab Persian Gulf countries, and potentially China, the main customer of Iran’s oil. Closing the strait would have also drawn in Western naval powers to protect the ‘choke point,’ to avert economic shocks.

The operation has also challenged the stability of Iran’s regime, with Khamenei reportedly having accelerated the search for his successor. Israel allegedly had a credible plan to kill Khamenei, which Trump opposed over concerns that it would enflame the conflict and destabilize the region. Despite rejecting the plan, Trump later described Khamenei as an ‘easy target.’ However, regime change remains unlikely without either a ground invasion or an uprising, neither of which seems probable at present. A ground invasion is a daunting prospect, while the bombing campaign has not catalyzed an uprising, as Netanyahu had suggested, there is no cohesive opposition in Iran, and the regime still controls all the levers of power. Furthermore, there are already signs of Iran’s domestic crackdown after the conflict and even if the regime were to fall, a post-theocratic Iran may not become democratic and could be dominated by the IRGC, potentially resulting in a more hardline regime. There is also the risk of unrest among Iran’s minorities, the country’s fragmentation and civil war, and the possibility of conflict spreading beyond Iran’s borders.

Although the elimination of key nuclear scientists has weakened Iran’s technical expertise and impeded its capacity to enrich uranium or develop a nuclear weapon, the strikes have likely emboldened hardline factions who argue that acquiring nuclear capabilities is the only way to deter future attacks, similar to the perceived security benefits North Korea has gained from possessing nuclear weapons. The bombing campaigns may have set back Iran’s nuclear program, but the country’s leadership is not likely to give up their ambitions for a nuclear weapon. If the regime survives and has salvaged enough of its nuclear program to sprint for a nuclear weapon, the tactical victory might turn into a strategic defeat.

Implications of the Israel-Iran war for the Middle East and beyond

The conflict has weakened Iran’s influence, potentially reshaping the Middle East’s balance of power. Although several Sunni Arab Gulf countries condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty and international law, their leaders are likely to privately welcome a weakened Iran. Nevertheless, if Iran’s regime survives, it is likely to accelerate its nuclear weapons program, which could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt potentially pursuing their own nuclear capabilities in response.

Iran was also left isolated, with Russia and China remaining on the sidelines and Western powers determined to end Iran’s regional influence. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin suggested Russia could help negotiate a settlement, but Trump appeared to scoff at the offer, saying that Putin should end his own war in Ukraine first. China, despite its strategic partnership with Iran, refrained from directly condemning Israel while urging de-escalation.

Some former US officials have even suggested broader implications, arguing that China might reconsider invading Taiwan, having seen how decisively Trump can act. Others argue, however, that by striking Iran while defending Putin, Trump may have sent a different signal; that he is willing to confront weaker adversaries but will let stronger countries do as they please.

Closing thoughts: What Operation Rising Lion means for the Middle East

Both Iran and Israel appeared to seek a way out of the conflict, as evidenced by the ceasefire that took effect on June 24th, 2025. The ceasefire appears to be holding, despite initial claims of violations, with both sides saying they would honor it if the other side did the same. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has announced the official end of the conflict and emphasized Iran’s readiness to ‘defend the rights of the Iranian people at the negotiation table.’ IDF’s chief of staff Eyal Zamir stated that while a ‘significant chapter’ in the conflict has concluded, the broader campaign against Iran is not over. The IDF will now shift its focus back to Gaza, with the specific objective of dismantling Hamas’ rule. However, while the campaign against Iran may provide short-term political gains for Netanyahu, the war in Gaza has also demonstrated the limits of warfare when it comes to eliminating an adversary on home soil rather than merely degrading their capabilities.

The strategic implications of the conflict could potentially reshape the Middle East. The region faces heightened risks of escalation and nuclear proliferation. Iran is likely to accelerate its nuclear program, to establish deterrence. Were the conflict to resume, both Israel and Iran are likely to expand the scope of the attacks to include each other’s political leadership, energy infrastructure and other targets that could still lead to a wider regional war. The path forward will depend heavily on diplomacy, military capabilities and preparedness, and the ability of regional and global powers to manage tensions before they spiral out of control.

To keep up-to-date with ongoing geopolitical events, sign up for our geopolitical risk reports here, or get in touch with us directly if you want to learn how Silobreaker can help your team produce and disseminate critical intelligence that is timely and relevant to your organization.