Executive Summary
Conflict onset: On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, an unprecedented and geographically broad air campaign against Iran targeting nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure, as well as senior military personnel.
Retaliation: Iran responded aggressively with Operation True Promise III, launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, resulting in casualties and strained air defences.
Strategic impact: Both sides sustained damage—Israel temporarily disrupted Iranian capabilities but failed to neutralize deeply buried facilities; Iran imposed psychological stress on Israeli society while its arsenal remained partially intact.
Regional danger: The direct nature of this conflict marks an escalation beyond decades of proxy engagements, risking spillover into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Gulf conflicts; international intervention remains crucial to prevent wider war.
1.Genesis of "Rising Lion" - Israel's Pre-emptive Doctrine
1.1 Strategic calculus
Israeli leadership, perceiving a red line in Iran’s accelerating nuclear program and an erosion of the 2015 nuclear framework, opted for a decisive military strike, bypassing diplomacy. The operation reflected Israel’s doctrine of pre-emption—striking before perceived existential thresholds are crossed.
1.2 Operational scope
Force deployment: Over 200 aircraft, including F-35s, F-15s, and UAVs, struck more than 100 targets, encompassing nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Tehran, missile bases near Tabriz and Kermanshah, and IRGC leadership compounds.
Covert dimension: The strike was preceded by Mossad-sponsored drone sabotage missions within Iran, which degraded Iran’s air defences and missile launchers—remarkably for an intelligence service operating deep inside sovereign territory.
Casualties and damage: Significant losses included IRGC Commander Hossein Salami, Chief-of-Staff Mohammad Bagheri, nuclear scientists, and hundreds of Iranian personnel and civilians. Bridges, infrastructure, and critical industrial capacity were also targeted.
1.3 Limitations
Despite heavy aerial bombardment, Fordow's deeply buried centrifuges remained largely unscathed—Israeli munitions lacked the penetrative capacity to neutralize such targets. Experts suggest that only U.S. ‘bunker-buster’ bombs like GBU‑57 MOP could complete that mission.
2."True Promise III" - Iran's Retaliatory Barrage
2.1 Missiles and drones
Scale: Iran launched over 150 ballistic missiles and 100+ drones targeting major population centers—Tel Aviv, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, Bat Yam, and Jerusalem—marking a direct aerial confrontation.
Defensive response: Israel’s multi-layered missile defense—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow—intercepted 80–90% of incoming projectiles.
2.2 Human toll and material impact
Israel: 24 fatalities, 592 injuries, limited structural damage—some civilian buildings impacted.
Iran: Iranian State sources report 200–400+ killed, including civilians; total estimates range higher when factoring displacement and infrastructure losses.
3.Strategic Context & Regional Dynamics
3.1 Historical resonance
This war surpasses the scale of prior confrontations, notably overshadowing Israel’s 1981 Osirak strike. It is a direct State-on-State aerial conflict, rather than a proxy engagement.
3.2 Regional feedback loops
Proxy surge: Iran's proxies—Hezbollah, Houthis, militias in Iraq and Syria—have increased hostile activities and launched indirect attacks such as the Houthi strike on Ben Gurion Airport in May 2025.
Economic strain: Oil prices surged; Red Sea maritime and commercial flights disrupted amid escalating regional instability.
3.3 Superpower strategies
United States: Balances between supporting Israeli defence (through intercept systems) and averting deeper military commitment. Public debate persists within Washington over the wisdom of escalation.
Diplomacy vs force: Iran, facing military attrition, signals potential openness to diplomacy—possibly as a delaying tactic, to avoid further devastation. U.S. appeals for negotiation are ongoing.
4. Military Dynamics & Endurance
4.1 Israel’s advantage—and limits
Israel enjoys air superiority and an effective missile defence network. Yet sustainability is a concern: interceptor inventories are being drawn down, and attacking fortified underground sites like Fordow remains out of reach without external support.
4.2 Iran’s resilience
Iran’s missile forces remain operational—only a portion of its weighted missile systems have been deployed. With remaining inventories intact and regional depth, the Islamic Republic can sustain prolonged conflict, albeit at economic and infrastructural cost.
5. Diplomatic Imperatives & Risks
5.1 Escalation trajectory
This is not conventional warfare—it mirrors hybrid conflict, fusing covert intelligence strikes, proxy engagements, and overt aerial operations. Analysts warn: “unexpected, politically charged incidents” could rapidly spiral the zone of engagement.
5.2 Pathways to de-escalation
UN mediation: Appeals for restraint are widespread; the Security Council is reviewing emergency resolutions .
Nuclear talks: Iran signals readiness for resumed diplomacy, conditioned on cessation of bombing. The U.S. may leverage this window to curb nuclear enrichment.
Constraints on force: Israel cannot sustain strategic bombardment indefinitely; Iran cannot endure unlimited bombardments without collapse. Diplomacy remains the only long-term stabilizer.
6.Humanitarian & Economic Consequences
Iran: Massive internal displacement, especially from Tehran; fuel shortages, public panic, flight disruptions; hospitals in receiving provinces overloaded.
Israel: Casualties in urban centers, commercial disruption, airtraffic rerouting, and population anxiety persist, albeit mitigated by defensive systems.
Global: Energy markets remain volatile; global commerce, especially in shipping, is under pressure; geopolitics show deepening fragmentation. All of which reinforces the need for diplomatic resolution.
7. Expert Perspective
7.1 Military evaluation
Israel executed a technologically advanced strike strategy combining aerial bombardment and covert sabotage. However, the inability to neutralize deep facilities leaves its core objective—nuclear derailment—only partially achieved.
Iran, while materially affected, showcased a capacity to absorb aerial losses and project retaliatory power—both militarily and psychologically.
7.2 Strategic consequences
The conflict is no longer asymmetrical. It reflects State-on-State conventional conflict with regional parties now involved. The risk of nuclear miscalculation remains low but not hypothetically impossible. Analysts project that western involvement (especially U.S. restraint) and regional diplomacy will determine future escalation or stabilization.
8. Future Outlook
Continuation or stalemate: Without diplomatic breakthrough, expect cycles of strikes punctuated by quiet periods—an uneasy coexistence of war and peace.
Proxy and regional escalation: Hezbollah’s border activity, Houthi missile strikes, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria—all elements in the potential expansion of conflict.
Diplomatic variables: The degree of U.S. engagement, European mediation, UN Security Council consensus, and Iran’s nuclear posture will define whether diplomacy gains traction.
Conclusion
This Israel–Iran war is a dramatic departure from previous proxy clashes. It represents an era of direct aerial warfare with high stakes: nuclear proliferation, regional conflagration, and humanitarian calamity. The current battlefield achievements—Israeli tactical surprise and Iranian missile resilience—have neither destroyed the other side’s will nor decisively altered strategic balances.
The conflict stands at a crossroads: either a build‑up toward further confrontation or a pressured retreat into diplomacy. The outcome hinges on coordinated international strategy, credible mediation, and strategic restraint. Without these, the region will remain poised on the brink—caught between escalating military calculus and the necessity of de-escalatory diplomacy.