In a significant escalation of hostilities, Israel has commenced an all-out war against Iran, targeting not only its nuclear facilities but also its military command structures and potentially the regime itself.
The assault began early Friday morning and marks a departure from previous limited incursions, suggesting a more ambitious strategy by Israel.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has labeled this military campaign “Operation Rising Lion,” indicating a desire for a decisive victory.
With the initial stage of attacks involving over 200 fighter planes striking 100 targets, several Iranian military commanders and top nuclear scientists were reportedly killed.
As the dust settled, Iran vowed to retaliate with “severe punishment,” but its first reaction—a drone strike involving 100 drones—yielded minimal damage.
The question now arises: will Iran escalate its retaliation with a barrage of ballistic missiles, similar to past responses?
Could this spiral into a broader regional conflict?
Moreover, how will this affect U.S. involvement, given President Donald Trump’s past reluctance to engage directly in Middle Eastern wars?
The attacks came as a surprise, with some analysts speculating that they were in the works for months.
Trump had earlier advised Netanyahu to hold off on military action while negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program were ongoing.
Despite Trump’s initial hopes for a diplomatic resolution, the attack undercuts those talks, which were set to resume shortly thereafter.
In fact, just hours before the strikes, Trump expressed cautious optimism about the potential for success in negotiations, although he acknowledged the difficulties involved.
In a move anticipated in light of the tensions, Trump ordered the evacuation of nonessential U.S. personnel in Iraq and military families from various bases in the Middle East, anticipating potential Iranian retaliation.
This evacuation order was interpreted by some as a tactic to pressure Iran into accepting U.S. demands—an assumption that proved incorrect.
The coordinated attacks were notably absent of U.S. involvement, as Marco Rubio, serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, characterized the operation as “unilateral.”
Conversely, Trump later indicated to the Wall Street Journal that he was aware of Israel’s plans beforehand, suggesting that while he may not have given explicit approval, he did not intervene either.
This presents questions about the integrity of U.S.-Israel relations—was the attack a surprise, or was the timing orchestrated to catch Iran off guard?
Such speculation raises doubts about Trump’s reliability as a negotiating partner in future arms control discussions.
As events unfold, if Iran chooses to retaliate with increased military force, it is likely that the U.S. will be dragged into the conflict.
Historical precedents suggest that even past exchanges of missile fire between Israel and Iran prompted involvement from allied nations such as Britain and France.
The dynamics may differ now that Israel has initiated hostilities; it remains to be seen whether those allies will respond in kind.
If they do not engage, Iran may find success in delivering counterattacks that could potentially endanger American lives, forcing Trump’s hand to deepen U.S. involvement.
The Iranians are undoubtedly aware of these implications, and they might calculate their response accordingly.
However, decisions made in the heat of conflict can often override rational judgement.
This escalation can be traced back to Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the multi-nation nuclear deal, which had previously mitigated tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
The accord effectively restrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for the lifting of several economic sanctions.
With the deal dismantled, Iran began to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, moving closer to achieving its atomic objectives.
Trump’s insistence on a more favorable agreement has repeatedly clashed with Iran’s demands, particularly concerning uranium enrichment—a key sticking point in negotiations.
Iran, having historically maintained the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is unlikely to concede to demands that compromise its sovereign rights.
This conflict over enrichment rights has persisted, putting any potential negotiations at risk of collapse.
With an increasingly capable military position, Iran may soon find itself cornered, potentially leading to a compromise that could be construed as a sign of weakness.
In light of these escalating tensions, Netanyahu may aim to dismantle the Iranian regime completely, a goal that could be pursued through supporting internal dissent or employing military interventions.
Despite discontent within Iran, any such intervention could provoke strong backlash against foreign involvement in domestic affairs.
Historically, Israel has approached military action against Iran with caution, primarily due to the potential for retaliation from Iranian proxies positioned nearby.
However, Israel’s recent military successes have significantly weakened these groups, giving Netanyahu confidence in this latest operation.
The calculations leading to this strike appear based on a perceived opportunity to act decisively against Iran before it could strengthen its defenses.
In summary, the success of Operation Rising Lion remains uncertain; it may eliminate immediate threats or it could lead to detrimental ramifications that extend beyond Israel’s borders.
As the situation develops, the possibility of broader warfare looms, which could ultimately draw in the United States and other nations.
The delicate balance of power in the Middle East is now precariously poised at a critical juncture, as the actions of both state and non-state actors may dictate the terms of future conflict.
image source from：https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/06/netanyahu-attacked-iran-israel-strike-united-states-response.html
