Israel's Strike on Iran
- Wikistrat
- 2 hours ago
- 5 min read
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched its most extensive strike on Iran to date—targeting nuclear sites, missile bases, and senior IRGC leaders. The result: a major escalation, the collapse of nuclear talks, and a new phase in regional conflict. In this new report, Wikistrat analyzes the timing, objectives, and implications of Operation Rising Lion—and what may come next
Introduction
In the early hours of June 13, 2025, Israel launched its most extensive and consequential military operation against Iran to date, targeting the core of the country’s nuclear program and the upper echelons of its military leadership. Codenamed Operation Rising Lion, the Israeli offensive struck nuclear enrichment facilities—including Natanz—along with missile bases, IRGC command centers, and air defense systems spread across the country. Among the high-profile casualties were General Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s top military officer, and Ali Shamkhani, a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Iran’s nuclear program was dealt a serious blow with the killing of six scientists and damage to key infrastructure.
The scale and precision of the strikes mark a turning point in Israel and Iran’s shadow war, propelling the region into uncharted territory with the real prospect of open, sustained conflict. Iran has already begun retaliating with waves of drone attacks, while both countries brace for further escalation. Israel’s decision to act—reportedly independent of U.S. involvement—reflects a sense of urgency to neutralize what it perceives as an existential threat, particularly in light of Iran’s increasing nuclear activities and growing defiance of international oversight. As tensions ripple across the Middle East, fears mount over the potential collapse of nuclear diplomacy and the possibility of drawing regional and global powers into a broader confrontation.
Why Now?
Israel’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure at this moment was driven by an acute sense of urgency among its security and political leadership. For months, Israeli intelligence assessments had indicated that Tehran was accelerating its nuclear program under the cover of ongoing negotiations with the United States—an approach perceived in Jerusalem as an attempt to establish irreversible facts on the ground. That urgency was further heightened when Tehran declared it would ramp up its nuclear activities following a critical IAEA resolution citing Iran’s non-compliance with its non-proliferation commitments. Israeli leaders saw this as a breaking point: diplomacy had failed to restrain Iran, and continued delay risked allowing the Islamic Republic to cross key nuclear thresholds.
Compounding the urgency was Israel’s perception that the strategic landscape had shifted in its favor. The collapse of Iran’s regional influence—marked by the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and Hezbollah’s defeat and subsequent dismantling following Israel’s 2024 military campaign in Lebanon, had weakened the so-called Shiite Axis.
In parallel, Iran’s air defense network had been severely degraded by Israeli strikes in October 2024, exposing critical vulnerabilities. With Iran’s deterrence capacity weakened and Israel already operating in a wartime footing due to the Gaza conflict, many in the Israeli establishment assessed that the cost of launching a broader military operation was lower now than it would be under peacetime conditions. This confluence of military, political, and regional factors created what was seen as a rare, and possibly fleeting, window of opportunity.
Finally, the broader geopolitical environment played a decisive role. The Trump administration’s return to power removed a key constraint that had previously checked Israeli military planning. President Trump’s longstanding hardline stance on Iran—including the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, the 2020 assassination of IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, and the implementation of sweeping sanctions under the "maximum pressure" campaign, signaled a willingness to tolerate or even tacitly support Israeli unilateral action.
While Washington was not directly involved in the June 13 strike, Israeli officials calculated that Trump’s administration would shield Israel from international fallout and prevent any serious diplomatic consequences. With regional deterrence fraying and Iran perceived as racing toward nuclear breakout, Israel acted before the strategic balance could tilt again.
What’s Next?
Israel’s Operation Rising Lion is far from over. While the opening wave delivered a staggering blow to Iran’s nuclear and military command structure, Israeli officials have made clear that the campaign will continue for days, and possibly weeks, to achieve its dual objective: first, to dismantle Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future, ideally setting the program back by at least 5 to 10 years; and second, to neutralize Iran’s capacity to launch effective retaliation in the short term by degrading its missile and drone infrastructure. By undermining both strategic deterrence and operational capabilities, Israel aims to reset the military balance on terms vastly more favorable to its own long-term security.
Crucially, however, Israel’s attack was calibrated to avoid triggering total war. The operation did not target Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, nor did it strike regime institutions, economic assets, or critical national infrastructure. Oil fields, energy export facilities, power grids, and ports were left untouched. There was also no indication of a major cyber component aimed at paralyzing Iran’s domestic systems. This surgical restraint was a signal to Iran’s leadership that Israel is not seeking regime change (despite some declarations made by Israeli officials) or economic collapse, but rather a strategic rollback of Iran’s nuclear and military posture. It is a message crafted to narrow the scope of Iranian retaliation and avoid dragging the entire region into a broader conflagration.
At the same time, Israel’s decision to carry out precision strikes on top security officials and nuclear scientists in residential neighbourhoods, marked a clear escalation. The attacks were designed to be lethal but tightly contained, often destroying individual floors and apartments rather than entire buildings. Compared to recent Israeli campaigns in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, this level of operational finesse is aimed to signal to Theran that Jerusalem is seeking to limit the scope of the conflict.
Iran now faces a fateful decision. A disproportionate counterstrike targeting Israeli cities or infrastructure risks triggering an Israeli escalation. this time potentially aimed at regime symbols and critical economic lifelines. Yet a muted or delayed response could be read domestically and regionally as weakness, particularly after the deaths of high-profile figures in the IRGC. Tehran’s best options are deeply constrained: its air and missile capabilities have been degraded, its regional proxies weakened, and the prospect of a U.S. intervention looms large if it seeks escalation through the Strait of Hormuz.
Most likely, Iran will seek a calibrated asymmetric response—one that maintains domestic legitimacy and signals resolve, but stops short of provoking regime-threatening retaliation. In parallel, Tehran may quietly return to diplomacy, albeit from a much weakened position, hoping to preserve the long-term viability of its nuclear program—an enduring pillar of its national prestige and strategic ambition.
Explore the Report
For a deeper understanding of the strategic logic, regional dynamics, and potential ripple effects of an Israeli strike on Iran, readers are encouraged to download Wikistrat’s previously published report, When Israel Strikes Iran. The report offers forward-looking scenarios and expert insights that remain highly relevant in light of the current escalation—shedding light on the military, political, and diplomatic consequences that now appear to be unfolding in real time.
To gain deeper insights and explore how Wikistrat’s Threat Analysis and simulation services can support your organization, visit our website at www.wikistrat.com or reach out to us directly at info@wikistrat.com. Our expert-driven platform delivers strategic foresight, scenario-based planning, and real-time simulations to help you navigate today’s most complex security challenges.