In the early hours of June 13, 2025, Israel carried out one of the most significant and sophisticated military operations in its modern history — Operation Rising Lion. In a series of coordinated airstrikes and covert missions, Israeli forces struck deep into the heart of Iran, eliminating key military and nuclear sites and decapitating segments of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The targets included missile bases, radar stations, and sensitive nuclear development facilities, with several high-ranking commanders and scientists reportedly killed, including IRGC chief Hossein Salami and General Mohammad Bagheri.
Iran responded with an attempted drone barrage, deploying over 100 unmanned aerial vehicles toward Israeli territory. However, Israel’s layered defence systems intercepted the vast majority of these threats before they reached Israeli soil. This operational success starkly illustrates the disparity in capabilities—and highlights the ethical calculus underpinning Israel’s military doctrine.
Critics may label this escalation. But to call it anything other than pre-emptive self-defence is to ignore both international law and moral clarity.
The Road to Operation Rising Lion
Iran’s long-standing war-by-proxy strategy — leveraging Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shi’ite militias — has destabilised the Middle East for decades. But in April 2024, Iran crossed a red line: it directly launched over 300 missiles and drones at Israeli cities, marking a shift from proxy terrorism to overt state-on-state aggression.
While Israel’s defences prevented mass casualties, the intent was unmistakable. Iran demonstrated not only capacity but also declared intent — the defining ingredients of an imminent existential threat.
Months of intelligence gathering revealed Iran’s acceleration of nuclear ambitions and weaponisation of new delivery systems, like the Qassem Bassir missile designed to evade missile defences. Diplomacy faltered. The international community, paralysed by fears of oil price shocks and regional fallout, did nothing.
Israel, recognising its margin for error had vanished, acted decisively.
Legal, Ethical, and Strategic Grounds for Pre-emption
Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms every nation’s inherent right to self-defence, including anticipatory action when an armed attack is imminent. This principle, rooted in the 19th-century Caroline doctrine, requires two conditions: necessity and proportionality.
Israel met both:
- Necessity: Iran had already attacked Israel directly and was preparing for further strikes. Waiting would have invited greater devastation.
- Proportionality: The operation was surgical. Only military and nuclear assets were targeted. Civilian infrastructure and political leadership sites were spared.
This was not a “shock and awe” campaign or blanket bombing. It was precise, targeted deterrence, meticulously planned to avert a greater war.
Iran’s Response: Escalation Without Allies, Retaliation With Real Costs
Iran retaliated in waves over several days — the most direct confrontation between these states in decades.
It began with more than 100 drones launched from Iran and proxies in Iraq and Yemen. Most were intercepted by Israel’s multi-layered defence systems — Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, and advanced electronic warfare. They failed to inflict serious damage, but escalation was far from over.
In the following days, Iran launched successive waves of ballistic missiles, including long-range Shahab and Sejjil-class projectiles, targeting Israeli cities and military infrastructure. While most were neutralised, some penetrated the shield. Tragically, at least 9 Israelis were killed and dozens more injured. Damage included homes, a school, and parts of a military base. The government declared a national day of mourning, and emergency services responded swiftly.
Iran’s intent was clear: to inflict pain, sow fear, and restore deterrence. Yet, its means were crude and its impact limited compared to the precision and proportionality of Operation Rising Lion.
Notably, Hezbollah refused to participate. Despite Iranian pressure, the Lebanese terror group stayed out of the fight. There were no major rocket launches from southern Lebanon. Israeli officials believe Hezbollah’s silence reflects both strategic calculation and Israeli deterrence — proof Iran cannot assume automatic support from its closest allies.
Meanwhile, Iran intensified cyber operations targeting Israeli airports, energy grids, and communication systems. While some disruptions occurred — including a temporary halt at Ben Gurion Airport — Israel’s Cyber Directorate and private-sector defences repelled the majority.
Despite the barrage, Iran’s retaliation underscored its limitations:
- Militarily, most projectiles were intercepted or missed key targets.
- Strategically, it failed to unify its proxy network.
- Morally, it launched missiles at civilian areas without warning — a war crime by any standard.
The contrast is stark: Israel targeted military and nuclear assets; Iran targeted civilian population centres.
Israel sought to delay a regional war; Iran sought to ignite one.
While Israel succeeded in crippling Iran’s capabilities, Iran succeeded only in reminding the world of its recklessness — causing grief not for military planners, but for innocent families.
The Moral Imperative of Clarity
This conflict is not one of equals. It is not a symmetric struggle between two regional powers. It is a confrontation between a liberal democracy and a theocratic regime committed to Israel’s annihilation.
Tehran funds and coordinates militias across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza. It builds missile launchers in civilian neighbourhoods, under hospitals and mosques. Its nuclear ambitions are for coercion, not peaceful energy.
By contrast, Israel consistently warns civilians, limits collateral damage, and seeks de-escalation when feasible. Even in this latest operation, Israel refrained from targeting political symbols or population centres, aiming only to degrade Iran’s offensive capabilities.
This contrast is morally clarifying.
Strategically, Operation Rising Lion has:
- Delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions;
- Eliminated key military figures central to Iran’s regional coordination;
- Reasserted deterrence against Iran and its proxies.
Politically, it exposed the failure of global diplomacy to restrain Iranian aggression. Talks between Iran and the U.S. scheduled for this week in Oman were immediately cancelled. Global oil prices spiked 8%. Airspaces in Jordan, Iraq, and Iran closed. The United Nations, however, has failed even to condemn Iran’s initial aggression.
Militarily, the strike underscored Israel’s supremacy in regional intelligence and operational reach. But it also raised risks — Iran’s proxies, especially Hezbollah, may be activated. Global Jewish communities remain on high alert. Western governments must do more to protect them and to call out Iranian-backed antisemitism as what it is: state-sponsored hate.
Conclusion: Not a War of Choice, But a Duty to Defend
Israel’s strike on Iran was not a war of choice. It was a necessity — calculated, constrained, and aimed solely at stopping what the world has long refused to confront: a genocidal regime inching closer to nuclear blackmail and regional domination.
The world now faces a simple test: will it recognise the legitimacy of a democratic nation defending itself — when the cost of inaction was too high to bear? Or will it continue to indulge the dangerous delusion of moral equivalence?
At stake is not just Israel’s security but the credibility of the West, the future of non-proliferation, and the balance of power in the Middle East.
Israel has acted. The question now is — will the free world stand with it?
