Under Benjamin Netanyahu’s current leadership, Israel has abandoned its old cautious playbook and embraced a far more aggressive posture toward Iran. In past decades, Israeli policy toward Iran, and indeed much of the region, was characterized by “strategic ambiguity” and measured deterrence. Israel quietly developed nuclear weapons while officially refusing to confirm them, and it confronted adversaries through covert action, targeted assassinations, and calibrated strikes that it often neither claimed nor broadcast. In effect, Israel’s shadow conflict with Iran was governed by unwritten rules of escalation control: little-denied sabotage, selective bombing of nuclear sites, and proxy clashes that stopped short of outright war. That old restraint was premised on maintaining deterrence without triggering a wider conflagration. Today, however, Netanyahu has jettisoned that approach. Instead of whispering threats, he now shouts them from the rooftops and backs them up with open military force. The June 2025 “Operation Rising Lion” epitomizes this shift: it was a large-scale, overt air campaign deep into Iranian territory, signaling that Israel had moved from hidden warfare to a declared war footing.
During the night of June, 12-13, 2025, Israeli F‑35 and F‑15 fighters, shown here with tanker support, embarked on unprecedented long-range missions into Iran. Analysts note that such a broad, multi‑day bombardment of Iranian cities and facilities is a dramatic departure from Israel’s prior tactics. Officially billed as a “preemptive” strike against Iran’s nuclear program, the Rising Lion raids struck dozens of targets across Iran. According to international media, the jet strikes hit key nuclear facilities (including the Natanz enrichment site) as well as research centers, missile production sites, and fuel depots. Indeed, Israeli warplanes “completed the first stage” of the campaign by hitting “dozens of military targets, including nuclear targets in different areas of Iran.” Iran’s Natanz reactor which lies under heavy fortifications and miles from the border was among the strikes. (Analysts note Natanz was complicated to reach because much of it sits deep underground). In short, Rising Lion was a coordinated, visible assault rather than the shadowy hit-and-run style that had defined Israel’s Iran strikes in the past.
This overt belligerence stands in stark contrast to what Netanyahu himself and other Israeli leaders used to call restraint. For years, Israel had taken small, deniable actions, cyberattacks, spy operations, and the assassination of nuclear scientists, to slow Iran’s program while publicly leaving diplomatic pressure on allies. Even when Israel bombed Iran’s foes in the region (for example, attacking Syrian reactor sites in 2007), it kept those strikes limited and often low-profile. The recent campaign shatters that mold. As one commentator notes, the Iran conflict “long wore the mask of deniability” with clandestine operatives and proxy warfare. Now, it is out in the open. Netanyahu has declared war aims to “wipe out” Iran’s nuclear program and missile threat in plain language. His defense minister even insisted the Israeli attack was preventive rather than preemptive, a step beyond any imminent self-defense. The resulting bombardment lasted days, involved dozens of jets, and was publicly acknowledged by Israel’s leaders.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric has matched the new force posture. Speaking to air force crews during the Rising Lion strikes, he boasted that “we are on the path to victory” against Iran. He claimed, “the Israeli air force controls the skies of Tehran,” a “fundamental shift.” He asserted that Israel was advancing toward its “strategic goals: preventing the nuclear threat and preventing the missile threat,” from Iran. In the same breath, he drew a moral contrast with Iran, blaming “the criminal Iranian regime” for “targeting civilians and killing children and women” and contrasting it with Israel, which he said had even warned Tehran’s residents to evacuate before the strikes. Such statements signal that Netanyahu sees Israeli force not just as a last resort but as a righteous crusade. In public messaging, he frames these massive pre-emptive attacks as necessary self-defense, yet critics point out that Iran had no imminent plans to invade Israel. The Guardian’s Moustafa Bayoumi harshly criticized the strikes as “falsely described as pre-emptive,” noting that without any immediate threat of war, the action is a “preventive strike,” a “blatant act of aggression,” under international law.
Observers say that Netanyahu’s true motivations are partly domestic and strategic. He has every incentive to look like a strong wartime leader. On the eve of launching the attacks on Iran, his fragile coalition government had barely survived a dissolution vote. Opposition and even members of his extreme-right allies were restless. By escalating foreign policy to maximum tension, Netanyahu can unite Israelis behind him and silence his critics at home. “War is his doctrine,” wrote one commentator, arguing that Netanyahu “believes the power of war will unite Israeli society and will stifle any American criticism of him,” especially since Israeli military aid comes primarily from Washington. In other words, facing a political crisis at home, Netanyahu may be using Iran as an external enemy to rally public support. Critics point out that Netanyahu has a history of “needing external enemies to survive his internal divisions,” indeed, for years, he manipulated threats from groups like Hamas to keep his government intact. Today, Iran has become the ultimate bogeyman he uses to justify a broad war campaign and to distract from Israel’s domestic turmoil.
Strategically, Netanyahu’s gamble appears aimed partly at drawing in Washington. Israeli officials appear to be calculating that only intense American pressure will enable Tel Aviv to complete the job. One diplomatic report notes that Netanyahu’s military moves “create an environment of urgency and provocation that makes American intervention, at a minimum, on the table.” Indeed, Gulf Arab allies of the U.S. spent days urging President Trump to rein in Israel and broker a ceasefire, on Iran’s behalf. Iran publicly asked Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman to pressure Trump for an immediate halt to the Israeli campaign, in return for Iranian flexibility on nuclear talks. But Israeli officials answered that with defiance. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office refused to confirm any readiness to stop the strikes, and the national security adviser bluntly said, “It is a little early for that. You don’t go to war and look to end it three days later.” In other words, Israel’s leadership is openly rejecting calls for de-escalation. They insist the campaign will continue until “all objectives” are achieved.
The risks of this high-stakes gamble are enormous. Already, the Middle East is closer to full-scale war than at any time in recent memory. Iran responded to the Israeli raids with one of its largest missile and drone assaults in decades, firing hundreds of rockets into Israel. For the first time, many Iranian ballistic missiles penetrated Israeli air defenses and killed civilians in Israeli cities. Likewise, Israeli bombs and missiles struck civilian areas in Iran. Reuters reported that missiles from Iran “pierced Israeli defenses in significant numbers.” They killed Israelis “in their homes,” while Iranian media showed images of wounded children and the elderly in Tehran. Both sides are now shaken: Iran has lost over two hundred lives (many of them civilians), according to its officials, while Israel saw several deaths from Iranian strikes on towns such as Bat Yam and Bnei Brak. Each retaliatory exchange draws a bloodier line.
Proxy actors are also being drawn in. Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels have begun launching drone strikes at Israeli shipping and ports in the Red Sea, expanding the war’s scope. The Yemeni attacks are a direct fallout of the Iran-Israel clash, as the Houthis seek to pressure Israel’s economy. Pakistan, a longtime Iranian friend, reportedly supplied Iran with precision-guidance kits for its missiles, improving their accuracy. Lebanese Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border is in a state of high alert, threatening to open another front if Hezbollah fighters are targeted. In short, what started as an Israel-Iran confrontation is now risking a region-wide conflagration. Even Russia and China, not involved initially, have felt compelled to intervene diplomatically. Russia’s president offered to mediate and even hold Iranian uranium on its soil, warning that the “military strikes were escalating the entire crisis to beyond serious levels.” Russian officials publicly condemned the conflict, noting that Netanyahu’s call for “regime change” in Tehran only hardened Iranian unity against Israel. European capitals, too, are alarmed; Western diplomats quietly admit that Israeli actions could spark uncontrolled instability, including disruptions to global oil supplies if Iran chooses to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Amid all this momentum, Israel appears to have no clear exit strategy. As one analyst bluntly put it, Israel may have “stunned Iran,” but it still lacks “a clear exit strategy apart from the bombings.” Washington’s role is crucial here. Israeli officials have made it plain that without U.S. backing, they might not be able to finish what they started. One Israeli commentator warned that if Israel fails to destroy Iran’s key nuclear sites like Fordow, the entire campaign could be “pointless” unless the U.S. intervenes militarily, an outcome some hawks in Washington publicly crave. Yet President Trump and other American leaders face a dilemma: U.S. intervention could deter Iran, but a wider war risks every kind of fallout from skyrocketing oil prices to more terrorism.
Israel’s government has so far not signaled any readiness to scale back; on the contrary, it has treated each new stage of retaliation as a reason to press on. As Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz warned after an Iranian missile barrage, “If [Iranian leader] Khamenei persists in attacking Israel’s home front, Tehran will face devastation,” Israel seems poised to respond to Iranian retaliation with even heavier blows. With each escalation, the danger grows that Israel’s punishment of Iran could trigger further retaliation by Iran’s allies or even draw in the United States by accident or design. Yet Netanyahu’s government has firmly stated that it will not halt until it meets its objectives. When Gulf mediators begged Israel to cease its assault, Israel’s answer was to proceed on the same course, claiming it would escalate “to complete war objectives.”
In sum, Israeli strategy has evolved from cautious deterrence to aggressive preemption. Once timid diplomacy and deniable covert ops, Israel’s posture under Netanyahu is now louder, prouder, and unambiguously combative. Netanyahu himself has proclaimed that war is his preferred method, effectively making external conflict a cornerstone of his rule. This shift has prompted intense criticism. Many observers ask whether Netanyahu’s goal is truly to defend Israel or simply to justify continued violence. Currently, Israel now has escalation dominance over its enemies, from Gaza’s Hamas to Lebanon’s Hezbollah to Iran, meaning it can pick how and when to intensify the fight. Such dominance does not easily translate into lasting peace or security, especially when pursued by a leader determined to maintain himself in power.
With the region on edge, Netanyahu’s gamble has broader implications. A full-scale Israel-Iran war could fracture alliances, intensify rivalries, and spark violence far beyond their borders. Conventional wisdom used to say that only diplomacy, not bombs, could deter Iran; now Israel is betting on the opposite. Some experts argue that to halt Iran’s nuclear aims truly, Israel would ultimately need a negotiated settlement, which could require concessions the current government fiercely rejects (even in Gaza). But Netanyahu shows little interest in diplomacy for now. The result is a dangerous unknown: a swift, brutal attack by Israel, matched by Iranian retaliation, with no agreed ceasefire or peace talks on the horizon. As one critic put it, Netanyahu “knows no other way” than war, and he seems willing to drag the entire Middle East along with him. In this new era of Israeli strategy, the old clarity of security through ambiguity has been replaced by uncertainty and peril for Israel and the region alike.
Add comment
Comments