For decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly vowed to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions by any means necessary. Those long-held threats culminated this week in “Operation Rising Lion,” a series of coordinated airstrikes against Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure. While Netanyahu’s carefully cultivated reputation as “Mr. Security” may have compelled him to pull the trigger, the strikes carry profound strategic, diplomatic, and domestic risks. As rescuers sift through the rubble in Tehran and world leaders scramble for a response, the true costs of confronting Iran head-on are only beginning to surface.
Setting the Stage in Jerusalem
Just hours before Israel unleashed its offensive, Netanyahu made a symbolic pilgrimage to the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. There, he slipped a handwritten note into a crevice between the ancient limestone blocks, quoting Amos 5:8: “A people rises like a lioness, and lifts itself up like a lion.” In tabloid parlance, the moment served as both prayerful invocation and political theater—Netanyahu’s traditional assurance that strength, faith, and nationalism go hand in hand.
The IDF would soon dub their action “Operation Rising Lion,” framing it as pre-emptive defense against a perceived existential threat. Official communiqués emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program, which Tel Aviv alleges is a cover for weapon development, had reached an unbearable tipping point. Netanyahu declared in English—choosing the world’s lingua franca over Hebrew—that Israel would no longer “pump the brakes” on confronting Tehran’s atomic drive.
A War on Seven Fronts
Since October 7, 2023, Netanyahu has proclaimed Israel to be at war on “seven fronts”—Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the West Bank, and Iran. While the first six have been dominated by proxy clashes and limited engagements, the extension into direct strikes on Iran represents a significant escalation. Israeli officials maintain that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Islamic Republic leadership have fomented violence across the region, arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, backing Hamas in Gaza, supporting militias in Iraq, and supplying drones to the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Still, direct action against Iran itself risks igniting a far broader conflagration. Unlike state-sponsored militia skirmishes, strikes on sovereign Iranian territory breach a longstanding red line—one that, until now, both Israeli and U.S. policymakers were reluctant to cross.
Netanyahu’s Brand: Strength Against Iran
Netanyahu has long leveraged his reputation as Israel’s hardline defender, promising voters he would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. His rhetoric has depicted Iran as the “leading state sponsor of terrorism” and his own government as the only bulwark against Tehran’s hegemonic ambitions.
“When enemies vow to destroy you, believe them,” Netanyahu said in his televised address. “When enemies build weapons of mass death, stop them. As the Bible teaches us, when someone comes to kill you, rise and act first.”
This framing plays well with a constituency that still reels from Hamas’s bloody incursion into southern Israel on October 7, 2023. Criticism of Netanyahu’s handling of that crisis, including intelligence failures and hostage rescues still pending, has dented his domestic popularity. However, a show of force against Iran taps into his core narrative of national security—tightening support among hawkish Israelis even as the Gaza war drags on.
From Negotiations to Strikes: The U.S. Factor
For much of his tenure, Netanyahu appeared constrained by U.S. policy. Under President Joe Biden, America favored renewed diplomacy to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment rather than immediate military action. Indirect talks in Oman and Italy in late 2024 appeared to inch Tehran and Washington toward a possible interim agreement. Yet skepticism in Jerusalem—where officials viewed negotiations as stalling tactics—remained high.
Reports of a tense call between Netanyahu and President Biden on Monday suggest the Israeli leader seized on an opening when Washington signaled mounting frustration with Iran’s intransigence. While the U.S. professed no direct involvement in the strikes—and American officials, including Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, insisted they had not greenlighted any attack—Netanyahu’s move implicitly tested the limits of U.S. support.
In a rare public split, the U.S. quickly reaffirmed its commitment to Israel’s security while urging de-escalation. “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” wrote Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Senator Marco Rubio on X. Nonetheless, Washington prepared contingency plans to defend U.S. personnel should Tehran retaliate.
Details of the Operation
The Israeli air campaign reportedly targeted multiple sites across Iran, including missile production facilities, command centres, and at least one segment of the Natanz uranium enrichment complex. Eyewitness footage from Tehran’s suburbs showed columns of smoke rising near presumed military installations, while Iranian state media confirmed casualties among senior IRGC officers and nuclear scientists.
READ MORE: Trump’s Global Standing Plummets: Worldwide Negative Ratings in Pew Poll
Initial estimates suggest dozens of Iranian paramilitary personnel were killed, though Tehran’s tally remains disputed. The strike on Natanz—a fortified underground site crucial to uranium enrichment—underscores Israel’s intent to strike at the heart of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure rather than merely pursue peripheral targets.
Tehran’s Calculated Response
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the operation as “barbaric aggression” and vowed a “bitter, painful fate” for Israel. Within hours, Iran’s air defence forces reported intercepting over 100 drones launched at Israel—an unprecedented retaliatory barrage. While few drones reportedly breached Israeli airspace, the IRGC’s drone campaign marks a shift from proxy warfare to direct drone strikes, signaling Tehran’s willingness to escalate.
Regional proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen—have already executed sporadic attacks on Israeli and U.S. assets in recent months. In the wake of the airstrikes, analysts expect a coordinated uptick in these proxy engagements, aimed at stretching Israel’s defences and pressuring Washington.
Strategic and Diplomatic Stakes
Operation Rising Lion carries substantial strategic risks. A direct confrontation with Iran raises the spectre of all-out regional war. Should Iran decide to target Gulf oil routes, close the Strait of Hormuz, or strike U.S. bases in the Middle East, the conflict could swell beyond Israel’s capacity to contain.
Diplomatically, Israel’s unilateral action strains relations with key Gulf partners—including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia—who have quietly warmed ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords. These states, wary of provoking Iran, may recalibrate their own security calculations if open conflict engulfs Iran and Israel.
Furthermore, Russia and China—both cautious of U.S.-aligned strikes near Iranian territory—could use the episode to deepen economic and military ties with Tehran, diluting Western influence in the region.
Domestic Political Calculus
At home, Netanyahu gambles that a forceful posture against Iran will offset critiques over the Gaza war’s toll and his government’s domestic agenda. Opinion polls indicate that while a majority of Israelis favor strong measures to prevent an Iranian bomb, many also fear that open warfare with Iran would provoke devastating retaliation on Israeli cities.
Parliamentary support for the operation has been broad, transcending typical coalition divisions. But as the Gaza conflict grinds on, public fatigue over continuous conflict poses a latent threat to Netanyahu’s fragile governing coalition.
Looking Ahead: Potential Scenarios
Analysts outline three broad scenarios:
• Limited Retaliation and Stand-Off: Iran could parcel out a series of measured drone or missile strikes against Israeli military targets without triggering a full-scale war—a dynamic of tit-for-tat escalation that regionally destabilizes but avoids global conflagration.
• Proxy Escalation: Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Houthi rebels intensify cross-border fire, compelling Israel to conduct deeper forays into Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, magnifying humanitarian and security crises.
• All-Out War: A major Iranian missile or drone campaign overwhelms Israel’s Iron Dome and Patriot batteries, forcing U.S. intervention to prevent mass civilian casualties—risking a direct U.S.-Iran confrontation.
While Netanyahu likely intends to calibrate strikes to avoid each extreme, the fog of war means any scenario can spiral beyond initial intentions.
International Reaction and UN Diplomacy
Global leaders have called for restraint. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session, though veto-wielding permanent members—Russia and China—clashed with Western members over condemning “acts of aggression” versus “provocations.” The U.K., France, and Germany issued a joint statement deploring any unilateral military action that escalates tension.
Arab League representatives condemned Israel’s “flagrant violation of sovereignty,” while Gulf foreign ministers quietly urged Iran to exercise “restraint.” NATO allies restated solidarity with Israel’s right to self-defence but underscored the need for diplomatic engagement to defuse the crisis.
Conclusion
Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-simmering ambition to strike Iran’s nuclear sites has finally materialized in a bold, risky gambit. Operation Rising Lion reaffirms his image as Israel’s indefatigable defender, yet it also exposes the nation to unprecedented military, diplomatic, and domestic pitfalls. As debris is cleared from Tehran’s outskirts and regional proxies flex their muscles, the broader Middle East braces for unpredictable reverberations. Whether Netanyahu’s gamble yields genuine security gains or backfires into wider conflict will shape the trajectory of Israeli-Iranian relations—and the stability of the entire region—for years to come.
