The preemptive attacks by Israel against Iran’s nuclear sites and ballistic missile capabilities were a showcase of Israel’s astonishing intelligence power and precise execution. These came a day after diplomatic efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program, led by the US, failed to produce any effective agreement or mechanism to achieve that goal.

Thus, the military option was inevitable. Israel had to take immediate military action to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold—something intelligence suggested was just weeks, possibly days, away. Iran had stockpiled over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent—a level that serves no civilian purpose whatsoever. In addition, the Iranian regime did not hide its goal of destroying Israel. The combination of intention and capabilities left no other choice.

Israel received a green light from Donald Trump’s administration to execute the attacks, but until later stages, it was unclear if the US would join Israel and attack the Iranian nuclear sites. Trump’s decision to attack three nuclear sites, including Fordow, was actually in line with his policy to end wars and not start them.

Soon after the US attacks, Trump was already making efforts to end this chapter between Iran and Israel and announced a ceasefire, including heavy pressure on Israel not to retaliate against Iran’s deadly missile attacks directed at civilians in the early hours of the ceasefire.

In his effort to end the war, Trump and his team were quick to declare that the Iranian nuclear program had been destroyed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians followed suit and announced that all military goals of the operation were achieved, and the Iranian nuclear program is no more. At the same time, the Iranian regime tried to downplay the Israeli and American attacks, claiming that some nuclear sites were hit, but it was not serious.

As the fog of war dispersed, indications of the real damage to the Iranian nuclear program revealed that the truth is somewhere in the middle. What did the attacks achieve then?

On the military domain, Israel was able to remove senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Iranian military, who oversaw the missile systems, command and control, and the Iranian proxies in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza.

Israel also dramatically reduced the missile capabilities of Iran, destroying the manufacturing lines and successfully targeting about 70 per cent of the missile launchers and about 50 per cent of all missiles that posed a direct threat to Israeli civilians.

In the nuclear domain, Israel eliminated the scientific knowledge base of the Iranian nuclear program, destroyed the industries that were supplying the nuclear program with the necessary components, mainly the centrifuges, and hit the enrichment sites badly, so that it will take Iran years to rebuild its nuclear capabilities.

In addition, many institutions of the Iranian regime were targeted, such as the main prison, internal security headquarters, the regime’s broadcasting service, and more. But it stopped short before an actual regime change could happen, and the regime’s leader, Khamenei, was not targeted due to American pressure.

It is still too early to tell the exact result of the Israeli and American attacks, but it is safe to say that the immediate nuclear threat from Iran was destroyed. Israel showed aerial superiority, exposed the weakness of Iran’s missile defences, and restored its position as a regional power.

At the same time, the regime has tightened its grip on society to prevent any attempt to overthrow it. The survival of the regime means that the ambition of destroying Israel hasn’t disappeared, and it could resume its military nuclear program in a matter of years if it decides to. Since the ceasefire is not rooted in an agreement and is based merely on deterrence, the situation remains fragile.

Thus, any future arrangement with Iran must address the nuclear issue and the missile capabilities but also acknowledge the current geopolitical conditions and not allow Iran to return to the situation existing before the Israeli attacks. Current diplomatic efforts in Europe and PM Netanyahu’s meeting with President Trump demonstrate the right direction, although so far, Iran is not willing to resume diplomatic talks, and the international community has doubts regarding a diplomatic solution to stop Iran. Thus, such efforts should go hand in hand with the military option to immediately respond to any future violations by the Iranian regime.

In a broader geopolitical context, the Israeli achievements against Iran have the potential to reshape West Asia. The US is trying to leverage the positive momentum to end the war in West Asia, reach a deal for the release of all Israeli hostages, and advance normalisation with Saudi Arabia and Syria, with which Israel has admitted to having established direct channels. Such developments would also contribute to the realisation of India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), connecting India and Europe through West Asia and Israel.

The international community has the opportunity now to build upon the Iranian regime’s weakness to construct a robust non-proliferation framework and not allow the situation to drift back toward the dangerous status quo of a nuclear threshold state. For Israel, the challenge is maintaining the deterrent effect of this operation while preparing for the possibility that Iran will eventually test these new red lines. The success of this strategy depends not only on Israel’s military capabilities but also on sustained international support and the possibility of positive political change within Iran itself.

Published in Firstpost, July 07, 2025.

Read the Hebrew original of this article.

In English, this article was first published at Strategy International.

Immediately following the launch of Operation “Rising Lion,” critics voiced dissatisfaction, skepticism, and dire warnings about the absence of clear war objectives, a coherent strategy, or an exit strategy, drawing parallels to perceived shortcomings in the “Iron Swords” campaign^[i]. Many dismissed alternative interpretations affirming the existence of a strategy with disdain or contempt, combining impatience, a lack of historical perspective, and disregard for the political leadership – treating it as incapable of reasoned decision-making amid a highly personalized discourse. Their extreme predictions of stagnation and a strategic dead end, encapsulated in the “no strategy” mantra^[ii], obscured substantive analysis, focusing on isolated events without reference to the broader context or historical perspective.

The October 7 attack was recognized early as transcending the Gaza Strip and a war with Hamas, positioning Israel in a multi-front regional conflict^[iii] with Hamas as one element of the Iran-led resistance axis. This reality necessitated an updated strategy, formulated in the war’s initial stages, aimed at effecting a second-order change^[iv] – a transformation of the existing system—rather than a first-order change within the existing framework.

Until October 7, Israel adhered to the existing system, focusing on adaptation and adjustment. As the need for a strategic shift became clear, transforming the system required a significant strike against its primary center of gravity: Iran, the head of the octopus. However, targeting Iran directly was not feasible early on, requiring preparation, capacity-building, and competence development across multiple fronts.

Once the strategic compass was set – transforming the existing system by striking its primary center of gravity—a guiding framework was established. This framework relied on a sequential logic of building capacity and accumulating power across four main stages, detailed below.

The first stage focused on the southern front while maintaining a defensive posture in the north. Its objectives were to regain control over occupied sovereign territory, prepare for a powerful offensive in the Gaza Strip to dismantle Hamas as an organized military and governing entity, secure the release of hostages, and establish a security environment preventing similar threats against Israel.

The second stage involved developing a response to the northern front, initially reactive in both offensive and defensive aspects, while preparing for the third, offensive phase. Special units operated deep in southern Lebanon to map and assess Hezbollah’s infrastructure, laying the groundwork for a ground maneuver.

The third stage, primarily executed in September and October 2024, was the offensive phase, during which Israel decisively defeated Hezbollah, severely damaging its military capabilities, command, and control structures, and eliminating its leaders and senior commanders. A byproduct was the accelerated collapse of the Assad regime, enabling Israel to seize the Syrian Mount Hermon and the Golan Heights buffer zone to prevent hostile elements from establishing a presence in an area lacking effective Syrian governance. Subsequently, Israel destroyed most of the Syrian army’s infrastructure in a preventive campaign to prevent hostile groups from seizing it^[v]. This secured Israel’s air superiority and operational freedom throughout Syria, neutralizing potential future threats. The severe blows to Hezbollah and Hamas—Iran’s most critical proxies—and the fundamental shift in Syria’s situation led to Iran’s expulsion from Syria and the loss of its grip on the country, which had been the cornerstone of the territorial contiguity Iran sought to encircle Israel, consolidate regional dominance, and destabilize pragmatic Sunni regimes.

Having stripped Iran of its capabilities and deepened its vulnerabilities—a process that began with the airstrike on October 26, 2024 (Operation “Days of Retribution”)^[vi] in response to missile and drone barrages launched at Israel—and based on intelligence indicating a potential Iranian breakthrough toward weaponizing enriched uranium, Israel launched Operation “Rising Lion” against Iran on June 13, 2025, employing an impressive campaign of deception and misdirection.

Within 48 hours, Israel decapitated the senior military leadership of the Iranian army and Revolutionary Guards, damaged ballistic missile infrastructure, and destroyed significant military assets. The attack stunned Iran, destabilized its regime, and enabled the Israeli Air Force to achieve air superiority and operational freedom.

Through sustained air operations, other capabilities deployed on Iranian soil, and sophisticated cyber operations, Israel continued to degrade Iran’s capabilities, disrupting its ability to launch large-scale missile attacks on Israel, as Iran had planned. Bereft of effective proxies and with its missile capabilities severely diminished, Iran was left exposed and vulnerable.

The Israeli offensive inflicted a humiliating strategic setback, revealing the stark contrast between Iran’s menacing image and its actual weakness and limited capacity to inflict harm.

Israel carefully coordinated its offensive against Iran with the US administration^[vii], hoping that President Trump would join the military effort and deliver a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly the Fordow facility, that eventually happened on June 22, 2025. Despite the separatist faction within the administration, opposing US military involvement, appeared dominant^[viii]. However, as Israel’s achievements captivated President Trump and the global community and encouraged US participation. Once it materialized, the war could be shortened, culminating in a historic achievement.

A strategy is tested through execution and over time, often identifiable only in retrospect.

Nearly two years after the October 7 attack, which shook Israel’s foundations and whose horrors will remain etched in the collective consciousness for generations, Israel, through political leadership and military strategy, transformed the war and the Middle East. This transformation will establish a new regional architecture, with Israel as a central pillar of stability.

The new regional architecture will prevent Iran from rebuilding capabilities that could render it a paralyzing threat to the region. Simultaneously, it will foster economic, infrastructural, and social development, opening innovative opportunities for addressing the Palestinian issue.

These regional changes will have significant impacts on the international system. The brutal war that engulfed Israel on October 7, 2023, has reshaped the world order.

Israel spearheaded a historic action for the free world, combating radical Islamic terrorism and a terrorist state threatening to become a regional and global menace under nuclear ambitions. Israel awakened the free world, restoring its willingness to defend itself against such threats.

In the perspective of nearly two years since October 7, Israel’s strategic compass and the strategy that dismantled the Iran-led resistance axis are clear, despite deviations and retreats due to constraints. The axis, which dominated the region while perfecting its terror apparatus into an existential threat, has been neutralized.

The Israeli strategy carries risks, particularly regarding Iran’s potential response to the devastating blow it suffered. As discussed earlier, the strike on Iran’s military capabilities heightened its vulnerabilities, yet the regime’s sense of existential threat could drive it to accelerate nuclear weapons development. This possibility cannot be dismissed, but the conditions created by Israel’s actions have paved the way for an agreement with stringent enforcement mechanisms and/or forceful intervention by Israel to thwart any Iranian attempt to rebuild its capabilities. A century from now, historians will likely articulate with precision the Israeli strategy that drove this historic transformation.

[i] Michael Milstein, “Phase B of the War Has Begun—Again Without a Strategy,” Ynet, October 4, 2024, https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bjhm2t2ac (in Hebrew).

[ii] Kobi Michael, “Israel’s Strategic Patience: A Historical Context,” Makor Rishon, November 15, 2024, https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/795141/ (in Hebrew).

[iii] Kobi Michael, “We Are in the Midst of a Regional and Even Global War,” Misgav News, January 16, 2024, https://www.misgavins.org/michael-global-war/?print=pdf (in Hebrew).

[iv]Kobi Michael, “On the Way to Changing the Regional Balance of Power,” Misgav Institute, 18 October 2024, https://www.misgavins.org/michael-on-the-way-to-changing-the-regional-balance-of-power/ (in Hebrew).

[v] IDF Estimates It Destroyed About 80% of Syria’s Military Capabilities—and Netanyahu Extends a Hand to the New Regime,” Ynet, December 10, 2024, https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rkepzg8vyl (in Hebrew).

[vi] Israel Defense Forces, “IDF Operations Against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon,” IDF Official Website, October 10, 2024, https://www.idf.il/242429 (in Hebrew).

[vii] Anna Bersky, “You Won’t Escape: Iran Doesn’t Want to Discuss It—Trump Is Preparing a Trap for Them,” Maariv, April 10, 2025, https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/article-1187350 (in Hebrew).

[viii] Itamar Levin, “Two Moves in Congress Against U.S. Joining Israel’s War with Iran,” News1, June 17, 2025, https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-503539-00.html (in Hebrew).

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

Winston Churchill uttered those immortal words in 1940, in praise of the Royal Air Force pilots who defended the island nation against Nazi Germany. Today, they echo once more – not over the skies of Britain, but above Tehran, Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.

Only now, the “few” are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald J. Trump. And the threat they, and their armed forces and intelligence agencies, helped repel was not the Luftwaffe, but the Islamic Republic of Iran’s relentless march toward a nuclear bomb.

History may yet look back on the Israeli and American strikes as the pivotal moment that stopped arguably the world’s most dangerous regime, Iran, from acquiring the most dangerous weapons on the planet.

Iran wasn’t merely on the brink of nuclear capability – it was sprinting toward it. The International Atomic Energy Agency had confirmed Tehran was enriching uranium to near-weapons grade, and that it was in clear violation of its non-proliferation obligations.

The reality is that, despite the best efforts of the US administration, diplomacy had failed. But unlike previous administrations, President Trump set a deadline of 60 days to reach a deal, knowing the Iranian negotiating habits of slow walking, delaying, dangling and hoodwinking.

Faced with an imminent and existential threat, Israel had no choice but to act – just as Churchill doubtless would have, had Britain faced the same peril. But while the Iranian regime represented an existential threat to Israel, it was also a menace to the United States and the entire free world.

Just as the mullahs chanted “Death to Israel,” they simultaneously chanted “Death to America.”

Indeed, they had the blood of hundreds of American forces and civilians on their hands, not to mention the casualty toll of US allies in the region and beyond.

They tried to assassinate US officials, including President Trump, while Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps agents operated on American soil, plotted attacks in Europe, launched deadly assaults in Latin America and disrupted international shipping lanes.

As President Trump said in his address to the nation following the US strikes, “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

Both Trump and Netanyahu were vilified – by the far left, the far right and much of the global diplomatic class. Yet they defied the naysayers. They stared down the appeasers, the enablers and the morally challenged, those unwilling, hesitant or just too frightened to confront the world’s foremost terror regime.

Netanyahu and Trump seized the moment. They led – boldly and decisively.

To be clear: neither sought war. But Iran was at the nuclear precipice. The risk of military action was real. But the risk of inaction, of a nuclear-armed Iran, was far greater.

Today, many in the international community wring their hands, asking whether the strikes “destabilised” the region. But let’s be honest: what destabilises the region hasn’t been the absence of a nuclear Iran – it’s been the prospect of its arrival. What preserved global security wasn’t a weak and porous accord in Geneva, but the hard power of Israeli fighter jets and American B-2s over Iran.

Too many Western leaders still echo the same naïveté that once led Neville Chamberlain to declare “peace for our time.” Churchill exposed that delusion for what it was when he told Chamberlain: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

The Iranian regime is an heir apparent to the Nazis – not only in the infrastructure of death it has single-mindedly pursued, but in its oft-stated genocidal ambitions. The difference, however, is the scale of devastation it could have unleashed with nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

Netanyahu and Trump understood that inaction was not an option. Their courage may well have spared the world from catastrophe.

And now, with a ceasefire brokered by President Trump having been announced, we are reminded that such an outcome was not achieved through weakness or appeasement – but through the projection of power, strength and resolve. The kind of outcome Churchill himself would have saluted.

Ultimately, in striking Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, Netanyahu and Trump made the world a safer place. They did it not only in defence of their own countries, but in protection of the free world. Indeed, not since 1940, has so much been owed by so many to so few.

David Harris is executive vice chair of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). Arsen Ostrovsky is a human rights lawyer and CEO of The International Legal Forum

The article was written together with David Harris is executive vice chair of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).

Published in The Jewish Chronicle, June  25, 2025.

Israel’s strike last week against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missile program, as well as President Trump’s bold decision to strike the Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites, has drawn the usual handwringing from parts of the international community, including in Australia.

Critics accuse Israel, and the United States, of destabilising the region and acting outside the bounds of international law. But the facts — and the law — tell a very different story.

First, with respect to Israel’s action, which initiated this campaign last week, it needs to underscored that this was not an act of aggression. It was a lawful and necessary measure against a genocidal regime that has vowed to destroy the world’s only Jewish state — and stood on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, had Israel not acted.

To understand why, we must begin with a fundamental truth: Israel was already engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called the Jewish state a “cancerous tumour” that “must be eradicated.”

For decades, Iran has been the greatest source of destabilization and instability in the Middle East, while carrying out repeated acts of aggression against Israel through their vast network of terror proxies — from Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, to the Houthis in Yemen.

The October 7th massacre — the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust — was carried out by Hamas with Iranian money, weapons, and training.

And in April and October 2024, Iran escalated further, launching direct missile and drone attacks on Israel from its own territory. These were not isolated provocations but ongoing acts of armed conflict.

The reality is that, despite the best efforts of the U.S. Administration, diplomacy had failed.

In the lead-up to Israel’s strike, intelligence showed Iran enriching uranium to near-weapons grade, with capacity to build at least nine warheads. Ayatollah Khamenei himself had directed a covert group of scientists to assemble the components for a nuclear bomb and construct fortified underground facilities to conceal the work.

Then the International Atomic Energy Agency, for the first time in two decades, formally declared Iran in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Iran was now on the precipice of nuclear no return.

Faced with an existential and imminent threat, the Jewish state had no choice but to act before it was too late, as no doubt Australia would have, were it faced with the same threat.

Accordingly, Israel’s actions must be perceived within the bounds of the laws of armed conflict. Once a conflict exists, states may lawfully target enemy military objectives, as defined in the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, provided they observe the principles of distinction, necessity, and proportionality – which they have been in this case.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program, ballistic missile infrastructure and key military officials and scientists leading the nuclear weapons development program, clearly qualify as military objectives. These targets contribute to Iran’s war-making capability, and their neutralization offers a definite military advantage.

And whilst Iran presented an existential threat to the State of Israel, it was also a national security threat to the United States, and the region as a whole.

Just as they chanted ‘Death to Israel’, they chanted ‘Death to America’. They had the blood of hundreds of American forces and civilians on their hands. They closed off shipping routes. They tried to kill President Trump and other U.S. officials. IRGC assassins operated on U.S. soil.

And as President Trump stated in his address to the nation following U.S. strikes, “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

To be clear, the President did not require Congressional approval to conduct the military operation.

Under Art. II of the U.S. Constitution, the President as Commander-in-Chief, has authority to use military force to protect the national security and defend U.S. interests. Obama invoked it in taking out bin Laden in 2011 and Biden when U.S. bombed Iranian proxies in Syria in 2021.

The President’s decision to strike Iran is also reinforced under War Powers Resolution Act (1973) and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), as well as the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence” under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

In striking Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel and the United States made the world a safer place. They did it not only in their own defense, but in defense of the free world. Australia should acknowledge this and unequivocally stand with their allies.

Published in Financial Review, June  22, 2025.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is facing one of the most critical and decisive moments of his life and political career. His lifelong mission—to preserve the Islamic Revolution entrusted to him by Khomeini in 1989—is now under unprecedented threat.
Despite his June 18 warning to Trump not to enter the war or suffer “irreversible consequences,” the U.S. ignored him. Early this morning (June 22), American forces struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, including its crown jewel: the underground Fordow site.
Khamenei’s threats are losing their potency. He had repeatedly insisted Israel was incapable of striking Iran—until Israel proved him wrong, eliminating top commanders in their sleep in a surprise attack. The regime is now also losing its frontline nuclear scientists, critical to advancing and safeguarding Iran’s nuclear expertise—long a source of pride and deterrence for Khamenei.
The Supreme Leader has vowed a response. Since this morning, the regime has issued escalating threats. Yet Khamenei never intended to find himself in such a position of distress. Arriving here is a profound failure of strategic judgment.
Iran’s national security doctrine centers on avoiding direct war, preferring to operate through proxies painstakingly built over decades. Now, with Assad’s regime collapsed and Hezbollah defeated by Israel, Iran stands exposed and vulnerable—despite Khamenei’s recent insistence that the resistance axis remains strong.
He must now decide whether to strike U.S. assets in the region—potentially triggering a full-scale war with America. This would mark a radical departure from past strategy, and Iran’s own military brass have admitted their inferiority in any direct confrontation. Yet inaction could be equally dangerous, signaling weakness and inviting further escalation.
By clinging to Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium, Khamenei is now risking his life’s work—and possibly the regime’s survival.
This is Khamenei’s first war as Supreme Leader. In the 1980s, Iran fought a brutal eight-year war with Iraq. But since then, it has projected power through proxy wars in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen—even parts of Africa. That strategy has now collapsed.
Iranian society has changed dramatically in recent years. The regime cannot survive a war of attrition. Yet provoking U.S. intervention could shake the very foundations of the Islamic Republic. With national internet access cut off to suppress unrest, the specter of a fourth revolution in 200 years looms.
Khamenei is now searching for a way to preserve the regime’s fragile balance—without handing the United States and Israel a historic victory.

Published in Alma, June  23, 2025.

Executive Summary

At this moment, Israel is acting to remove the threat of Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile arsenal. The situation is still developing and detractors seek to draw attention to possible detrimental consequences of Israel’s action. It is therefore worth clarifying what the consequences of inaction would be, and what the grave reality of a nuclear Iran would look like.

Regarding the timing to act now, Iran was about to take the final steps toward having a nuclear bomb. In the past months it has leaped forward in uranium enrichment, bringing it within days of enough weapon’s grade uranium for a bomb, and enough for nine bombs with three weeks. In the days preceding the operation, the IAEA declared that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The window of opportunity for action was rapidly closing.

The fundamental reasons why a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel and a severe threat to global security, can be summarized as the following:

The threat of outright nuclear attack on Israel – The possibility of a surprise Iranian nuclear attack on Israel cannot be dismissed. The regime may act in ways not necessarily bound by Western notions of rationality — including the use of nuclear weapons even at the cost of self-destruction. Even if the regime is rational enough to avoid steps that would lead to its own destruction, if it were to assess that it could destroy Israel without endangering its survival, then it might indeed choose to launch a surprise attack on Israel with the aim of annihilation.

The possible use of a nuclear weapon in the event of regime collapse or other scenarios – In a scenario where the regime is on the verge of collapse, there is a real possibility that it would launch a nuclear attack on Israel, as the regime’s survival would no longer be a constraint. Additionally, errors stemming from the deep mutual distrust between the two countries could result in a nuclear exchange that neither side intended. The regime might also transfer a nuclear bomb to a terrorist organization, which would then use it against Israel without Iran taking responsibility.

Nuclear escalation as a tool for Iranian regional hegemony – Iran would use the threat of nuclear escalation to gain leverage in its regional struggles, and would intensify efforts to assert hegemony over the broader Middle East. It would limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. This would also place intense pressure on regional states to align with Iran or adopt conciliatory policies toward it.

Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East – A nuclear Iran would create a strong incentive for other regional powers to pursue nuclear capabilities or weapons of their own, which would create a highly unstable regional nuclear arms race and severely undermine the NPT.

Undermine US-led global order – A nuclear Iran would represent a significant strengthening of the anti-Western axis of China-Russia-Iran. Given Washington’s longstanding opposition to a nuclear Iran, a successful Iranian effort to become a nuclear state would cause great damage to the credibility of the U.S. worldwide.

To read the full article

The Israeli operation has left the regime in Tehran stunned. The boldness of the move, the depth of the intelligence penetration, the quality and variety of operational capabilities, the breadth of the theater of operations, the pace of strikes and assassinations, the number of targets hit, and the absolute freedom of action in the airspacem alongside the replication of the scenes from Gaza and Beirut, now playing out in Tehran, all of this has far exceeded what the Iranians thought possible within what they had expected from a “strike on the Iranian nuclear program.”

 The regime’s failure to protect its personnel and assets adds to its failure to deter Israel or prevent and disrupt the assault. Images of thousands of Tehran residents fleeing the city and reports of Russian President Vladimir Putin warning Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei about the peril facing his regime have brought humiliation. Since the start of the operation, the chain of events has exposed the regime’s weakness, not only in the eyes of its own citizens but also to the proxy forces under its patronage and to the countries of the region. The greater the Israeli achievement, the deeper the embarrassment for Iran.

 We have reason to be proud of our accomplishments, but under no circumstances should we fall into complacency or overconfidence. The mission is far from over. The ayatollah regime has already proven during its war with Iraq its ability to endure prolonged hardship, even at a high cost. It is less sensitive to attrition when it is the target, and it regularly uses such tactics against its enemies. Furthermore, it is not bound by the moral restraints that the West has imposed on itself. The recent missile launches targeting densely populated areas in Israel served only to reaffirm this reality. It is safe to assume that Iran’s security apparatuses will use any means, target, or theater to exact revenge and restore its honor. Israeli security forces are no doubt preparing accordingly.

 Still, Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal – its primary tool for establishing strategic symmetry – is not limitless. In the course of the fighting thus far, it has launched several hundred, and likely lost several hundred more in Israeli strikes. Given the current situation, it is presumed that Iran will struggle to replenish its stockpiles, limiting its ability to maintain the rate of fire we have seen and to rebalance the asymmetry that is forming vis-à-vis the Israel Defense Forces. While Iran still possesses an additional arsenal of cruise missiles, UAVs, and possibly other strategic projectiles, the challenge they pose is not equivalent to that of the ballistic missiles, whether due to their quantity or performance capabilities. The geographic distance that once posed a challenge to Israel may now become an advantage.

 The toppling of the Iranian regime or destabilizing it has not been defined by Israel’s Diplomatic-Security Cabinet as an explicit goal of the operation. That is understandable. Nonetheless, in Israel and in parts of the region and the West, the hope that such an outcome will occur, albeit not as a direct or immediate consequence, is hardly concealed.

 It is difficult to predict the tipping point for authoritarian regimes. We saw that clearly in the cascade of collapses during what was dubbed the “Arab Spring.” And we needn’t look that far back: Just six months ago, the world was stunned by the rapid collapse of the Syrian regime following a short surprise attack by opposition forces. This, of course, was aided by Israel’s earlier defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and by the long-term erosion of Assad’s rule since the 2011 outbreak of Syria’s civil war. The lesson here is not only how hard it is to pinpoint the moment of collapse, but also the cumulative impact of repeated blows, weaknesses, and cracks.

 In any case, the primary declared goals of the operation are to remove the nuclear threat and the strategic threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program. Israel’s actions thus far are progressing as planned, achieving their designated tactical objectives—and more. Reports of significant damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan are encouraging. The targeting of nuclear scientists is intended to deter other experts, those with or who may yet acquire similar knowledge, from joining any future efforts. A strike on the Fordow facility would leave Iran not only without its unique capabilities but also without a bargaining chip in any future negotiations, should they take place.

 Do not push the US

 The question of US involvement in offensive operations against Iran, within the framework of this campaign, is especially sensitive. While the US is offering diplomatic cover, supporting defense efforts, and supplying munitions, this is not the same as active offensive participation.

 Israel is well aware of voices within the US warning against American entanglement in a war that is not theirs. It is also aware that, if the US does join, it will not limit itself to military action but will seek to shape the course of the campaign. Still, from Israel’s perspective, the balance of risks and benefits leans in favor of American involvement. As long as Israel can manage on its own, it would be wise to maintain the current policy and, at least officially, leave the decision entirely in the hands of President Donald Trump.

 Exit strategy

 Early talk of an exit strategy plays into the perception of Israel that took root before October 7: Impatient and unable to sustain prolonged conflict.

 At this stage, Israel must continue to strike relentlessly, inflicting maximum damage in minimum time. This is the moment to severely impair Iran’s weapons development, research, and production capabilities and to strike at all branches of its strategic force.

 It is not only acceptable but necessary to take a skeptical view of overtures from Iran or its allies about resuming negotiations with the US. If Israel is drawn into such talks, the appropriate response should be: “Negotiations only under fire.”

 Israel must aim for the war to end not just with a devastating blow to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs but also with enforceable mechanisms that will, for many years, prevent the Islamic Republic from rebuilding its military and strategic capabilities. Operation Rising Lion is a historic opportunity to achieve that.

 Published in Israel Hayom, June  16, 2025.