Dr. Mehmet Rakipoğlu
The airstrike launched by the Israeli Air Force on June 13, 2025—dubbed “Rising Lion”—was not merely a military operation but the apex of a multi-layered strategy aimed at reshaping the geopolitical map of the Middle East. Indeed, with these attacks, which were in complete violation of international law, Israel directly targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and its strategic military command structure. The timing of the strike was also symbolically and politically significant: on the same day, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition government narrowly avoided a domestic political crisis by preventing the dissolution of the Knesset over the issue of compulsory military service for ultra-Orthodox Jews. In this way, the Tel Aviv administration attempted to balance internal political fragility through aggressive foreign policy.
Secondly, the timing of the strike also coincided with the expiration of the 60-day deadline given by the United States for a nuclear deal with Iran. With the possibility of an agreement effectively ruled out, Israel’s action assumed the character of a ‘preemptive strike,’ a concept highly controversial under international law, which the Tel Aviv government employed to justify its aggression, claiming that Iran had crossed an “irreversible” threshold in uranium enrichment activities. While Israel tried to create a veneer of legitimacy for its unbounded aggression with such rhetoric, the specific targets and individuals killed revealed that the attack served a much larger strategic purpose.
Indeed, the killing of Iranian Chief of General Staff Mohammad Bagheri, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander Major General Hossein Salami, and Headquarters of Khatam al-Anbiya Commander General Gholam Ali Rashid clearly indicated that the core of the regime’s military and strategic command was being targeted. The death of Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, showed that Iran’s deterrence threshold had been seriously eroded in terms of its drone and missile capabilities. The targeting of nuclear scientists further revealed the technical character of the strike and a deeper agenda aimed at Iran’s nuclear program.
Implications of the Attack
Israel’s recent airstrikes against Iran highlight the advanced level of Israel’s intelligence and operational capabilities inside Iranian territory. The assassinations of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020, Colonel Hassan Sayyad Khodaei in 2022, and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in 2024, clearly demonstrate the structural weaknesses within Iran’s security apparatus and the extent of Israel’s infiltration. In contrast, Iran lacks the operational capacity to conduct such operations inside Israel. Instead, it seeks to apply pressure through proxy actors like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shiite militias.
This asymmetry in operational effectiveness influences not only battlefield outcomes but also the wars of perception and legitimacy. Despite its actions in Gaza and unlawful attacks on Iran, Israel continues to be portrayed in Western public opinion as a “threatened victim state,” while Iran is labeled as an “aggressive regime seeking nuclear capabilities.” The race among U.S. senators to express support for Israel, European leaders’ emphasis on “legitimate self-defense,” and NATO’s tacit backing reinforce this perception management.
Iran’s limited response to the Israeli attacks consisted primarily of missile and drone strikes launched from multiple cities. Most of these were neutralized by Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling systems. However, a few Iranian missiles and drones managed to evade Israeli radar and struck cities like Tel Aviv and Bat Yam, causing casualties and property damage. These strikes also uncovered Israel’s deployment of military equipment and air defense systems within civilian zones.
Although Israel suffered some losses, Iran’s retaliatory strikes have yet to match the scale and impact of Israel’s attacks, which targeted command structures, nuclear facilities, and energy sources. Iran’s relative ineffectiveness is due to several factors: its limited air defense capability, the weakening of its proxy networks, and the West’s overt support for Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran’s strategic allies like Russia and China have offered little tangible support, exposing a pragmatic approach in Iran’s foreign alliances that prioritizes self-interest over true solidarity. Iran’s proxy network has also suffered heavy blows recently: Hezbollah’s loss of key leadership in late 2024, the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, and the containment of Shiite militias in Iraq have significantly diminished the strategic depth of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.”
Under these circumstances, Tehran’s strategy of buying time and repositioning its regional allies appears increasingly fragile, both economically and strategically.
Internally, the Israeli assault has triggered a legitimacy crisis within Iran. Social media is awash with criticisms of security failures, intelligence lapses, and inadequate elite protection, all of which are ringing alarm bells among the regime’s base. Iran’s internal intelligence is probing potential insider leaks or infiltrated operatives, potentially fueling factional conflict within the regime.
Combined with structural issues such as economic crisis, sanctions, inflation, and youth unemployment, these developments have led to growing doubts about the regime’s ability to “protect” the nation—even in the face of external aggression. As a result, the Iranian regime’s internal cohesion and external resistance capacity are being simultaneously eroded.
Nuclear Narrative
The primary justification used by Israel to legitimize its attacks is the claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. However, this assertion is both historically and technically disputed. U.S. intelligence reports have stated that Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran remains a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and its nuclear facilities are subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In contrast, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied possessing nuclear weapons, has not signed the NPT, and its facilities remain outside international oversight.
This asymmetrical situation reveals not only a legal discrepancy but also an entrenched structural and geopolitical privilege. While Israel’s nuclear program is overlooked, even Iran’s civilian nuclear capabilities are criminalized. This double standard undermines the legitimacy of the global nuclear order and increasingly weakens the credibility of the so-called rules-based international system.
Future Scenarios
Following Israel’s attacks on Iran, several possible scenarios are being debated. The first is a full-scale regional war. Although it would bring devastating consequences, the likelihood of such a scenario remains low. The most destructive yet least preferred scenario involves a direct Israel-Iran war escalating into a multi-front regional conflict. In this case, Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and even Iran-linked elements in Afghanistan could be activated.
Moreover, Gulf countries—which have thus far called for restraint and are most uneasy about growing tensions in the region—may no longer be able to remain neutral if U.S. military bases on their soil are targeted. Should these bases come under attack, Gulf states may be forced to side with the United States, thereby becoming direct targets for Iran—an outcome these regimes are keen to avoid. Such a war could also trigger sharp fluctuations in energy markets, global economic recession, and large-scale humanitarian crises affecting millions. However, the efforts of major powers—particularly the United States and China—to prevent this scenario help keep its probability relatively low.
The second and more plausible scenario is that both parties avoid direct war and continue to escalate tensions through intelligence operations, cyberattacks, and limited sabotage. This pattern has persisted since the 2010s, notably exemplified by Iran’s entrenchment in Syria and Israel’s targeted assassination operations. However, rather than fostering stability, this model perpetuates a state of ongoing conflict and carries a persistent risk of escalation due to the unpredictable behavior of proxy actors.
The third scenario, which Israel has been striving to implement since October 7, 2023, envisions direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. At this stage, the United States could reinforce its defense systems in the Gulf, increase its military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Sea of Oman, and intensify its support to Israel in terms of munitions and intelligence. As tensions escalate, this support might extend to limited air raids or precision strikes on targets within Iran. Such developments would affect not only regional but also global political dynamics. A direct confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would compel China and Russia to reassess their interests in the region and push Europe to revise its energy and security policies. Among all the possible scenarios, the second remains the most likely under current conditions. Once the climate of confrontation initiated by Israel and sustained through Iran’s retaliatory actions reaches a saturation point, the situation may shift toward a phase of controlled tension through mediation by actors such as Qatar and Oman.
In conclusion, the Israeli strike of June 13, 2025, marks a new phase of conflict in which Israel has moved beyond proxy wars to directly target regime elements. Tel Aviv has launched this assault in order to overcome domestic political crises, obscure the crimes of genocide in Gaza, and assert its regional military superiority. Western military, diplomatic, and discursive support was the key enabler of this assault. On the Iranian side, the inability to respond as forcefully as Israel has led to a loss of deterrence, further compounded by internal security vulnerabilities and crises of legitimacy. Iran’s long-standing strategy of “gradual response over time” is no longer sustainable in light of current battlefield realities and shifting public sentiment. The dynamics of asymmetric warfare are now turning against Iran.If this trend cannot be reversed, a new order will inevitably emerge in which Israel gains unlimited operational freedom in the Middle East while Iran becomes increasingly isolated.