Operation Rising Lion: Achievements, Open Questions, and Future Scenarios

The Reasons that Drove Israel to Take Offensive Initiative

1. Iran’s Intransigence in Negotiations with the United States
   During negotiations, Iran insisted on retaining its uranium enrichment capability, rejecting all American compromise proposals on this matter.
2. The Iranian Missile Program Reached a Highly Dangerous Stage
   The IDF Military Intelligence Directorate (AMAN) assessed that within four years, Iran would possess more than 8,000 advanced missiles capable of causing cumulative damage on an intolerable scale.
3. Alarming Developments in the “Weapons Axis”
   In recent years, Iran has built a unique project to produce a lethal missile warhead (a fusion weapon). Although this ambitious project failed, the failure spurred now inactive Iranian missile scientists to convert it into a “conventional” nuclear weapons project (fission weapon). This shift, combined with Iran’s existing threshold nuclear status, possessing all the means to produce a bomb, created a risk that Iran would soon reach an immunity zone—meaning the speed of its breakout to a bomb would outpace Israel’s ability to intervene militarily. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, did not give the order to proceed to this stage, but the potential for a severe threat was clear.
4. A Historical Opportunity Created by Israeli Achievements Since October 7, 2023
   The relative weakness of Hezbollah and Hamas, the destruction of Iran’s strategic air defense systems, and its economic distress all appeared to present a golden opportunity to strike in Iran. Since most assessments regarded this situation as temporary, it became imperative to act immediately.

Israeli Security Establishment’s Assessment of the Urgency

The prevailing assessment among Israel’s security establishment was that postponing the operation would be extremely problematic, as the Iranian threat was expected to worsen: In a few years, a different US president—who might be less attuned to Israel’s security concerns and less willing to cooperate in thwarting Iranian armament—could be in office. Thousands of heavy conventional warheads in Iran’s possession would severely challenge Israel’s defensive capabilities. Iran’s nuclear know-how and capacity would reach an immunity zone, making a preemptive strike ineffective. Additionally, Iranian proxies across the Middle East could recover and rearm. The inevitable conclusion was that Israel might soon face an impossible reality. Thus, despite the risks, an attack on Iran became essential.

The Risks

The operation, while deemed necessary, involved four significant risks that remained unresolved up to the moment of execution:

Dependence on US Cooperation to Strike Fordow
The basic stance of the United States, reflected in official statements made by President Trump and within his political base (the “MAGA” movement), opposed “endless wars in the Middle East.” Therefore, it was highly unclear whether the United States would act alongside Israel. Although the president gave a “green light” to the Israeli operation, he could reverse his position at any moment—especially if he judged the operation not brilliant enough to offer political glory. In such a scenario, the operation could have ended in total failure, since an attack on Iran without destroying the Fordow facility—the campaign’s central objective—would still leave Iran capable of breaking out to a nuclear bomb.

Endgame Mechanism Dependent on the United States
Without US involvement, the operation could have escalated into a prolonged war of attrition. Such conflicts end only when one side unilaterally halts due to exhaustion. Iran, driven by pride and its status as a regional power, would not unilaterally stop, nor could Israel afford to do so without completing its mission at Fordow. Therefore, an external stop mechanism—an order from the US president—was required to restrain both parties.

Damage to Israel’s Home Front
The preliminary assessment of fatalities was at least 400. If Iran’s immediate retaliation plan had been fully executed in the first hours, the casualties and destruction would have been much greater than those accrued. Additionally, there was a very real threat that such a strike could have impinged the continuity of Israel’s Air Force and air defense system operations. Damage on such a scale would have severely constrained Israel’s ability to continue the attack plan.

Ongoing Risk Even After the Campaign
The strike could drive Iran’s leadership to order an accelerated push toward accomplishing a nuclear weapon—concluding that a threshold nuclear status is not enough of a deterrent, and therefore, an actual bomb must be produced. Should Iran request a ready-made bomb from another country—North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia—the threat could become even greater than initially assessed, before and after the attack.

Rising Lion: The Method of Operation and Deception Elements

Unlike the nuclear reactors under construction in Syria and Iraq, in which destroying a single plutonium reactor was sufficient to cripple the nuclear program, the Iranian nuclear program does not revolve around one reactor. It involves a complex infrastructure that cannot be eliminated in a single strike, requiring a prolonged and flexible campaign comprising numerous operations and operational. Accordingly, a surprise operation was planned to paralyze Iran’s command and control systems, establish air superiority over Iranian skies, and preserve freedom of action. This would allow for significant and broad attacks on various components of Iran’s nuclear program.

The Campaign’s Five Offensive Efforts

The operation consisted of five offensive efforts: decapitation, air superiority, neutralization of the nuclear project, depletion of the missile array, and destabilization of the regime. Defense of the Israeli home front, another important effort, will not be discussed in this analysis.

1. Systemic Decapitation

This military term refers to neutralizing the enemy’s leadership. The operational challenge is to simultaneously eliminate all top military commanders at the outset. This mission was successfully executed. Key eliminations included:

• Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), responsible for Iran’s missile program, which he built over the past decade.
• Gholam Ali Rashid, the “Emergency Chief of Staff,” Commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Command, designated to command all of Iran’s military forces in wartime, including both the IRGC and the regular armed forces. For approximately 15 years, he had prepared this command for war against Israel and the United States.
• Mohammad Bagheri, the “Routine Chief of Staff,” commander of Iran’s military during peacetime. In the event of Rashid’s death and dysfunction of the emergency command, he was supposed to take over the campaign.
• Hossein Salami, Commander of the IRGC, responsible for “exporting the revolution.” He also commanded Iran’s missile forces and its proxies in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and beyond. His elimination further disrupted the entire Shiite axis.

2. Air Superiority over Tehran

Key achievements included:

• Establishing a secure aerial corridor (in fact, several corridors) enabling the Israeli Air Force to conduct long-range strikes with in-flight refueling and a continuous wave of attacks far from Israeli territory.
• Maintaining a constant drone presence over Iran to hunt for surface-to-surface missile (SRBM) launchers, to neutralize air defense systems, and to eliminate commanders. This persistent drone presence generated significant fear, perhaps even more than the fighter jets, greatly reducing the launch of SRBMs toward Israel.
• Intelligence: The challenges of locating launchers, air defense systems, and carrying out precision strikes in the midst of battle were immense. Iran is vast and distant, making accurate intelligence essential for target acquisition, especially mobile SRBM launchers. For this mission, Israeli military intelligence developed new capabilities over the years and worked in seamless coordination with the air force.

Israeli air superiority led to systemic failure of Iran’s combat doctrine. Iran had prepared for war with centralized command and control, SRBM launchers designed to evade aircraft, and redundant air defense systems. This entire modus operandi was thoroughly disrupted.

3. Neutralizing the Nuclear Project

Key actions included:

• Destruction of weapons science knowledge hubs, eliminating leading experts in nuclear weapons fields—especially diagnostics, radiation, explosives, and multi-point detonation systems (MDS).
• Targeting the military industry, destroying facilities that manufactured components for the nuclear project, particularly centrifuges.
• Significant damage to uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow.
• Destruction of the uranium reconversion facility in Isfahan, where enriched uranium is converted into metallic uranium—a critical stage in producing a hollow uranium core for a nuclear weapon’s fissile pit.
• Destruction of the nuclear archive, a copy of which was located in the basement of the nuclear project’s headquarters in Tehran.

4. Depleting the Missile Array

Key achievements:

• Striking missile production lines, causing significant damage to Iran’s missile manufacturing capability, although not completely eliminating it.
• Destroying launchers and missiles. The foremost success was the destruction of over 70% of the missile launchers, creating a production bottleneck. Approximately 50% of the missiles posing a direct threat to Israel were destroyed or neutralized.
• Targeting command and control systems, achieved through the elimination of commanders and attacks on control and monitoring infrastructure.

5. Targeting Regime Symbols (Part of the Effort to Weaken the Government)

Key operations:

• Collapse of Evin Prison’s walls: This notorious prison in Tehran houses political dissidents and regime opponents. The goal was to encourage opposition by enabling mass escapes that might later fuel a revolution. However, only a small number of prisoners actually escaped.
• Thar-Allah Security Force: This is a major public security force tasked with combating regime opponents. Dozens of its members were killed, but it remains uncertain whether the organization’s operational capacity has been significantly weakened.
• Attacks on internal security assets: Strikes targeted law enforcement agencies supporting the regime’s suppression of unrest. Dozens of official facilities and command posts were attacked, and many internal security officers were killed. The overall impact on regime stability remains unclear at this stage.

Additional Efforts to Undermine the Regime

• The IRGC Financial System: An effort to block financial transfers and destabilize the economic security of key figures in the Shiite axis was recorded. Outcome: Iran’s financial mechanisms were severely choked.
• Weakening the Basij: This popular militia intended to rapidly suppress attempts to topple the regime. Approximately half of Basij members are civilians whose professional identity is unknown, creating fear and deterrence among the public. Dozens were killed, with no apparent significant impact on regime stability.
• Destruction of Tehran Headquarters: These were not law enforcement centers but rather command posts for combat readiness and the nuclear project. Their destruction was designed to create a sense of persecution and highlight the depth of Israel’s intelligence penetration in the heart of Tehran. The result: highly visible damage, widespread evacuation of assets, and large-scale civilian evacuation near headquarters. This action had immediate tactical value and could carry strategic weight in the longer term.
• Evacuations of Tehran Neighborhoods: Aimed at minimizing civilian casualties during Israeli strikes on Tehran (complying with international law). The result: massive traffic jams and increased public pressure, although no widespread riots or protests erupted.

Long-Term Results: Recovery Time and Overall Impact

Command and Control Disruption

• Command and Control: Iran quickly and efficiently recovered from the decapitation strike at the war’s outset. All newly appointed commanders were experienced veterans. By war’s end, they were battle-hardened leaders who, in their view, had survived—and even won—a war against Israel and the United States Therefore, this is not a long-term strategic loss for Iran.
• Learning and Lessons: The friction between Israel and Iran taught both sides about each other. Israel now knows more about Iran’s capabilities and strategic culture, and it is likely that Iran will similarly learn and adapt. Iran is expected to develop countermeasures against Israeli intelligence penetration and air superiority.
• Motivation: Iran’s supreme leader will likely deliberate whether to return to negotiations with the United States or to take another path. Any future negotiations will differ from those before the war. Iran will likely seek to avoid appearing weak, perhaps maintaining nuclear ambiguity—holding a bomb in reserve or preserving uncertainty.

Nuclear Program Impact

• Loss of Enrichment Capability on Iranian Soil: If Iran seeks to enrich uranium beyond 60%, it will now have to build a new enrichment facility. Before the conflict, Iran could have reached weapon-grade enrichment in about a week. Now, due to the campaign’s success, it will take many months.
• No Current Uranium Re-conversion Capability: Iran presently cannot reconvert enriched uranium into metal. While this technology is simpler than other nuclear processes, hurried and covert efforts could enable them to attain this goal in several months (less than a year), although full restoration would take much longer.
• Loss of Expertise: The elimination of key nuclear scientists left the program without its most dangerous and capable personnel. Iran has many talented scientists, but few with the skill to manage a complex nuclear weapons project. Recruiting, training, and assembling a new team will take many months.

Summary of Achievements

Nuclear Front:

1. Iran is no longer a nuclear-threshold state—thus, the time required for it to break out to a nuclear bomb is now longer than the time Israel would need to intervene militarily.
2. Iran could regain nuclear-threshold status within one to two years of a supreme leader’s order to restart the program, assuming no external interference.
3. The urgency and detail of the bomb design process (components, structure, operation) will determine the restoration time. Theoretically, Iran could conduct a nuclear test in less than a year, but such a move would project power without posing an operational threat—and would likely trigger a full-scale American–Israeli attack.

Missile Front:

Roughly half of Iran’s SRBM capabilities were lost due to industrial destruction, missile losses, and Iran’s own launches at Israel. Israel has greatly slowed Iran’s missile buildup, although the military industry is expected to recover over time.

Possible Future Scenarios (From Most Severe to Least Severe)

1. Rapid Breakout to a Bomb: This scenario could materialize if Khamenei concludes that nuclear breakout is Iran’s necessary response. Iran has 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60% and the technical knowledge to rebuild. Although it would take many months, Iran may risk international and Israeli backlash. Outcome: Iran becomes a global pariah, provoking possible military action from the United States and international community.
2. Nuclear Deal as a Cover for Secret Development: Iran signs a deal while secretly rebuilding its nuclear program. The Iranian public might see this as weakness, but it would provide the regime with economic relief. Outcome: a major intelligence and operational challenge for Israel and the West.
3. No Deal, No Immediate Attack, Slow Recovery to Nuclear-Threshold Status: This would likely bring new, severe sanctions from the UN Security Council. Iran would be weakened, possibly encouraging regime collapse over time. The risk: Iran may accelerate its nuclear efforts. The open question: what comes first—regime collapse or nuclear breakout? (Even a future regime might not abandon the nuclear path.)
4. Complete Abandonment of the Nuclear Program: Iran’s supreme leader chooses stability over nuclear ambitions, prioritizing economic and social well-being. This excellent scenario is extremely unlikely, as it contradicts the Islamic Republic’s core ideology and would require a major concession from Iran’s leadership, particularly after Operation Rising Lion.
5. Regime Collapse: Regime change cannot be predicted. It is typically driven by grassroots movements, sometimes aided by armed opposition. At some point, a freedom-seeking underground movement may rise and overpower the regime’s forces. This process could take a very long time—or happen suddenly. Outcome: This is Israel’s (and others’) dream scenario. However, according to Iran experts, the probability is low. Despite Iran’s current weakness, its regime remains stable.

Conclusion

The campaign against Iran was necessary at this time. The operation’s goals were achieved, and in the short term, Israel’s security has improved. However, in the long run, the threat has not disappeared. Unless regime change occurs. Iran will likely remain a source of threats to Israel. Post-war Iran is weaker but no less dangerous.

Israel now needs a new policy that balances readiness to repeat the attack to preserve achievements with a framework for a limiting and restraining nuclear deal. Such a deal would aim to keep Iran away from nuclear weapons. Therefore, Israel must maintain preparedness against the Iranian threat, including intervention capabilities to disrupt any nuclear breakout. At the same time, Israel should not rule out a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran, provided it meets key conditions:

• No independent Iranian uranium enrichment.
• Thorough and ongoing international oversight, including weapons components.
• A binding agreement without an expiration “sunset” clause.