Smoke rises from a fire, as the Israel-Iran air war continues, in Tehran, Iran, in this still image obtained from social media video released June 17, 2025. PHOTO | REUTERS
On Friday, June 13, 2025, Israel launched the most audacious air strike in its history.
Dubbed “Operation Rising Lion”, the campaign involved over 200 fighter aircraft and delivered hundreds of precision attacks deep into Iranian territory.
By day’s end, Iran reeled from the loss of top military generals, leading nuclear scientists and critical nuclear sites.
This was not the tit-for-tat exchange of the previous year; this was a clear declaration of war.
For decades Tehran has relied on proxy forces—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Houthi insurgents in Yemen—to strike at Israel from afar.
Iran preferred to let these surrogates do its bidding, keeping its own hands ostensibly clean.
Yet observers have speculated on the consequences should Jerusalem and Tehran ever confront each other directly for years.
Both governments share an uncompromising stance: Iran vows the destruction of the “Zionist entity”, while Israel forbids any Iranian path to nuclear armament.
The central question has always been when, not if, this confrontation would erupt.
When dawn broke on June 13, the world had its answer. Israel’s pilots struck with surgical precision, obliterating radar installations and air defences before targeting military headquarters and nuclear complexes.
Only 24 hours earlier, an Iranian general had publicly boasted of readiness for any scenario; by the following morning he lay dead, emblematic of the steep price of underestimating Israeli capabilities.
But why would two nations, separated by several neighbours and lacking territorial dispute, choose to wage open war?
The explanation lies in history and ideology. Before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, under the Shah, Iran and Israel maintained cordial relations.
Iran’s growing economy and social freedoms under the monarchy made it a natural partner for a diplomatically isolated Israel.
All changed when Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution renounced any tolerance for Israel’s existence. From that moment on, Tehran and Jerusalem became avowed foes.
From Israel’s perspective, this strike was a long time coming. For decades, Iranian leaders have menaced Israel with ballistic missiles and covert support for armed groups on Israel’s borders.
Iran’s steady progress in uranium enrichment, coupled with its ballistic missile programme, represented an existential threat. Last October, limited Israeli raids had degraded some of Iran’s air defences, creating a window of opportunity.
With Russia fully engaged in Ukraine, Iran’s proxies neutralised, and Donald Trump in the White House, Israel judged that it had an optimal moment to press its strategic advantage.
For Iran, the war’s purpose is bound up in regime survival and regional ambition.
The Islamic Republic’s revolutionary narrative insists on resistance to Israel as proof of its legitimacy and guardian role for the Muslim world.
Nuclear capability serves both as a shield and a status symbol—demonstrating technological mastery and deterring future strikes.
Beyond Tehran’s borders, Iranian influence via Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and other allied militias has been the main instrument of power projection, creating a “ring of fire” around Israel without direct Iranian troop deployment.
Since April, Trump had given the Iranians a choice to end their nuclear programme peacefully, but the Iranians’ ideological framework left little room for compromise.
The mullahs cannot retreat from their vow to eradicate Israel without undermining the very mythos that sustain their rule.
By positioning themselves as defenders of Islam against Western aggression, Iran’s leaders rally support domestically, deflect criticism of economic hardship and bolster the sanctity of the revolution.
Looking beyond the immediate carnage, the question becomes: how can this war end?
Israel has publicly asserted two objectives: disabling Iran’s nuclear facilities and destroying its missile arsenal.
Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that roughly a third of Iran’s missile inventory is destroyed, while airstrikes have damaged enrichment sites at Natanz and research facilities near Tabriz.
Yet without specialised bunker-busting ordnance, key underground installations remain intact, allowing Tehran the potential to rebuild over the coming years.
A less overtly stated aim in Jerusalem appears to be regime change in Tehran.
Israeli leaders have insisted they strike only the regime’s infrastructure and not the Iranian people, hoping to drive a wedge between the government and its citizens. A friendly government, they believe, would neutralise the “Iranian Problem”, eliminating the justification for perpetual conflict.
Whether such an outcome is achievable, and how the Iranian public might respond, those are questions that need to be answered.
As of mid-June 2025, Israeli strikes have been confirmed over a swath of targets: Tehran’s military facilities, the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the nuclear research centre near Tabriz, sites near Isfahan and Arak, and an underground ballistic missile depot in Kermanshah.
Senior Iranian figures lost in the raids include Major General Salami, commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; General Bagheri, chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces; General Rashid of Khatam of al Anbiya HQ and Brigadier Hajizadeh of the IRGC Aerospace Forces.
The scientific community also suffered significant losses with the deaths of nine experts so far.
Can Iran conjure any miracles to change the trajectory of this war? Next week, we will dig deeper to see how this war can change the region forever.
