Political Analysis: The Israeli Assault Against Iran... Playing with Fire

Reading Time: 4 minutes

By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.

The Israeli assault launched against Iran shortly before dawn on Friday, 13/6/2025, targeted three levels:

First: The military command-and-control system, including senior army and Revolutionary Guard leadership;

Second: The core infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program—particularly nuclear stations and reactors, as well as missile and drone launch bases;

Third: The qualitative level, represented by senior nuclear scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear project. This multi-phase assault—carried out in five waves at the time of writing—sought to deliver a severe preemptive strike against the nuclear program, disrupt command and control systems, and disable key elements of Iran’s deterrent capability. With the confirmed assassination of Iran’s Chief of Staff, the head of the Revolutionary Guard, several top-tier military and Guard commanders, along with a number of nuclear scientists, and with direct damage inflicted on the targeted nuclear reactors, Israel began celebrating its achievement, even as anticipation mounted over Iran’s potential response. This article, written just hours after the attack, offers only a preliminary reading of the assault.

Netanyahu, who named this assault Operation Rising Lion, described it as a pivotal moment in Israel’s conflict history and a necessary measure to confront the “existential” threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and to secure Israel’s safety. He obtained unanimous approval from the security cabinet for the attack. Israeli sources justified the offensive by stating that intelligence had recently detected an acceleration in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities, claiming Iran was nearing the “point of no return.” Reports by international inspectors also indicated that Iran possesses enough material to produce 9 nuclear bombs, an assertion Netanyahu emphasized in his speech.

The Israeli aggression aligns with Netanyahu’s long-term security vision, which extends beyond merely restoring Israel’s deterrence image lost on 7/10/2023. It aims to expand Israel’s security dominance across the surrounding strategic environment in a blatant, violent and unapologetic manner. Netanyahu outlined this vision publicly on the first anniversary of Operation al-Aqsa Flood (7/10/2024), under the pretext of safeguarding Israel’s security and the future of Israeli generations. This same policy is now being pursued in Lebanon and Syria.

The US… Deception and Role-Playing:

It is clear that the US played a significant role in executing and ensuring the success of the Israeli attack. The Israeli airstrikes could not have penetrated deep into Iranian territory without US logistical support, especially regarding the use of Iraqi airspace and aerial refueling operations.

Prior to the attack, US media outlets leaked information about the possibility of an Israeli strike. The Wall Street Journal cited a senior Israeli official as saying a strike could come as soon as Sunday, June 15, if it did not accept the US proposals. The New York Times also reported that “Israel appears to be preparing to launch an attack soon on Iran.” The situation became clearer when the US took precautionary measures, including evacuating some of its nationals from the region.

Israeli media revealed that the US was informed of the attack well in advance and that Israel coordinated fully with the US. However, it appears the US deliberately misled by confirming the sixth negotiation session on Sunday, 15 June, while hints and leaks from President Trump expressed a desire to continue and successfully conclude the talks.

The Iranian Response:

There are two possible scenarios for the Iranian response. The first is a “calculated response,” similar to previous reactions, involving the launch of hundreds of rockets and drones targeting specific locations within Israel. This is a response for which Israel has prepared extensively; it has anticipated and taken precautions against it, making it manageable, absorbable and its impact weakened. Moreover, it lacks the element of surprise, which means Israel can appear as the “victor” in the confrontation. This perception would embolden Israel to continue violating Iran’s national security, as it does in Syria and Lebanon, thereby weakening Iran’s regional standing.

The second scenario is an “equivalent response,” where Iran delivers severe and precise strikes against Israeli leadership and its military and nuclear infrastructure. Such a response could halt Israeli arrogance and impose limits, forcing Israel into a defensive posture while establishing Iran as a significant regional power that cannot be bypassed.

Certainly, neither option is easy for Iran. The “calculated” response risks perpetuating an environment dominated by Israeli hegemony and aggression. The strong, equivalent response is difficult to execute and fraught with risks, including the possible entry of the US into the war, especially since President Trump pledged to defend Israel if necessary, in addition to the danger of escalating the conflict into a wider regional war. Therefore, it is expected that Iran will seek a balanced response that preserves its status and prestige without being drawn into a regional war. It may continue negotiations with the US on its nuclear file regardless of the nature of its response, and it may decide to join the nuclear club if it perceives itself or its political regime to be engaged in an “existential battle.”

***

Netanyahu may have sought, through attacking Iran, to escape forward by boosting his popular support, maintaining his grip on power and preserving his ruling coalition. He may also have aimed to present an image of achievement in light of the failure to crush the resistance in Gaza Strip (GS) and to free the Israeli prisoners, especially given his sinking deeper into a quagmire of massacres, bloodshed, brutality and starvation, and the ugly image of Israel in GS that has drawn global condemnation.

However, Netanyahu is, in reality, “playing with fire.’ What he is doing does not necessarily expand deterrence; rather, it broadens the circle of resentment, hostility and conflict within the strategic environment, disrupting the peace process and normalization tracks, exposing the ugly face of Israeli occupation, and accelerating the arrival of a “new Arab Spring,” which increases existential risks to Israel. What Netanyahu fails to realize is that the mindset he operates under “what can’t be done by force can be done with even greater force,” might succeed elsewhere, but it will never succeed with the people of this Arab and Muslim region, deeply rooted in its civilization, history and heritage. Challenges only strengthen their faith and determination, fueling projects of reform, change and revolution against the bleak reality.