Final Situation Report | “Rising Lion” – The Israel-Iran War

June 13-24, 2025

 

Overview

The “Rising Lion” operation, also dubbed the “12 Day War”, marked a watershed moment in the military and strategic confrontation between Israel and Iran. Israel embarked on a military campaign to strike the core of Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile project, thereby removing a clear and present threat by Iran. The United States, initially merely greenlighting a unilateral Israeli action, joined the campaign to strike sensitive sites with unique military capabilities. The campaign also saw unprecedented launches of ballistic missiles and drone attacks, sophisticated use of Israeli air defenses, and direct involvement of global powers. Both sides suffered losses, but the scope and results set a new precedent in the region.

 

Israeli Successes

Israel’s action was robust and multidimensional, achieving almost all operational goals. Most notably, Israel successfully neutralized the nuclear threat, drastically reduced the missile threat, targeted regime symbols, and decimated nearly the entire upper echelon of the IRGC. Israel also established overwhelming air and intelligence superiority, dominating the skies of Iran with little resistance, broadcasting to the region that it possesses formidable capabilities as a regional power.

Importantly, Israel refrained from targeting certain top Iranian regime officials (such as Supreme Leader Khamenei and members of the government), while targeting top military and nuclear officials, and from destroying vital oil facilities. This restraint was deliberate, intended both to avoid triggering a global energy crisis and to preserve key assets for possible future leverage in the next stage of the conflict.

 

Diplomatic and Strategic Dimension

  • The United States joined the campaign not only in a defensive role but also in offensive operations. This was particularly evident in the joint strikes on nuclear facilities, including the deeply buried Fordow site.
  • Iranian regional proxies, cultivated over decades for just such a confrontation, largely abstained from joining the conflict. Hezbollah did not fire a single missile; Iraqi militias remained uninvolved; even the Houthis, who had routinely launched missiles toward Israel, only managed two launches during the twelve days of fighting.
  • Israel’s actions received broad international legitimacy. This was reflected both in Western support for Israel’s military response and in the restraint shown by adversarial regional actors.

 

Military Achievements

Nuclear Program

  • Israel struck the three primary nuclear facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan) and numerous secondary sites related to Iran’s nuclear program, including command centers in Tehran and centrifuge manufacturing plants. The fatal blow that reportedly caused the total elimination of these sites was inflicted by the United States.
  • At least fifteen senior Iranian nuclear scientists, including leaders of the “weaponization group,” were eliminated.
  • Intelligence assessments indicate significant damage to all three main nuclear facilities, but the full extent—especially regarding uranium stockpiles—remains under investigation.

Ballistic Missile Program

  • Around 65% of Iranian ballistic missile launchers were destroyed.
  • Israeli airstrikes wiped out 800–1,000 ballistic missiles from Iran’s arsenal before they could be launched. As a result, Iran’s total remaining missile inventory is estimated at 1,000–1,500—less than half of its pre-war levels.
  • Iranian missile launch capability has been severely diminished, with western missile units knocked out and remaining launch operations forced to shift to central and eastern Iran.

Targeted Killings

  • Four senior Iranian military branch commanders were eliminated: senior advisor to the Supreme Leader, the IRGC commander, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, the commander of the Emergency Command and his successor, and the leaders of the nuclear program.
  • The entire leadership of the IRGC Air and Space Force was wiped out, including the Air Force commander.
  • Two senior Quds Force commanders, Izadi and Shahriari, were also killed.
  • Hundreds of IRGC and Basij officers were killed in a series of attacks on command centers in Tehran.

Defense Achievements

  • Israel’s air defense systems intercepted 80–90% of incoming missiles. Of the total barrage, only 50–60 missiles struck Israeli territory, with 8 causing deadly casualties.
  • Israel intercepted 99.99% of Iranian drones, with only one drone causing physical damage—without any injuries.
  • Throughout the operation, Israel maintained continuous operation of vital national infrastructure. There were no significant disruptions to power, water, or energy supply, and the feared “blackout scenario” did not materialize.

Air Superiority

  • According to Israeli Air Force officials, over 80% of Iran’s air defense capabilities were destroyed.
  • Contrary to initial fears, no Israeli manned aircraft were shot down over Iran, and no Israeli pilot required rescue.
  • More than 80 Iranian surface-to-air missile batteries were destroyed, leaving Iran’s airspace vulnerable.

Iranian Retaliation Capabilities

  • Iran demonstrated its ability to orchestrate significant assaults on Israeli territory, launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and over a thousand drones in a campaign designed to overwhelm Israel’s multilayered air defense. The strikes caused significant civilian casualties and widespread property damage. The barrage inflicted heavy psychological and material tolls, temporarily disrupting life in many Israeli communities and highlighting Israel’s continued vulnerability to high-volume missile attacks.
  • Iranian air defenses succeeded in downing two Israeli UAVs, a notable feat given the technological gap and Israel’s reputation for air dominance.
  • Iran’s campaign also achieved limited but symbolic successes by striking major infrastructure targets, including energy and scientific facilities. There were direct hits on sites like the Bazan oil refinery complex in Haifa, Weizmann Institute, the Soroka hospital and multiple civilian buildings.

 

Key Figures:

  • Iran launched approximately 500 ballistic missiles and over 1,000 drones at Israeli territory.
  • Israel suffered 28 fatalities (27 civilians and one IDF soldier) and hundreds of injuries as a result of Iranian missile strikes.
  • Dozens of sites in Israel were damaged, including significant destruction to hundreds of homes, leaving many residents homeless.
  • Israel’s air defenses achieved 80–90% successful interception rates for missiles, while 99% of drones were intercepted. Only one drone caused any physical damage, and even then, there were no casualties.
  • Critical infrastructure, including Haifa’s Bazan industrial complex and the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, were hit.
  • On the Iranian side, two Israeli Air Force drones were shot down by Iranian air defense systems.

 

U.S.-Israel Relations and International Context

  • One of the most remarkable outcomes of the operation was the public, direct military collaboration between the United States and Israel against a common adversary. This development marks a dramatic shift from the approach during the 1990 Gulf War, when the U.S. sought to keep Israel on the sidelines and was reluctant to be seen as sharing a military front. Today, such joint action serves as a powerful force multiplier and changes the perception of Israel in the eyes of the U.S.’s Muslim and Arab allies, positioning it as a legitimate and central security partner.
  • President Trump’s strategy introduced a new security architecture in the Middle East—one that offers Israel more autonomy as a U.S. ally and serves as a model for other regional partnerships in Europe and Asia. This approach allows the U.S. to reduce its own direct military commitments while empowering its allies. It is a move that not only demonstrates U.S. strength but also signals a shift toward greater burden-sharing in global security arrangements.
  • At the NATO summit, President Trump stated that negotiations with Iran would likely resume soon, underscoring a preference for diplomacy following military pressure. He highlighted the severe damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and detailed the scale of the U.S. contribution, noting that 52 American refueling planes participated in the campaign, which had been planned for five years and executed over a matter of weeks.
  • Trump characterized the end of the war as a product of mutual exhaustion, with both Iran and Israel eager to conclude hostilities after the American strike. He also revealed that Israel launched aircraft in response to Iranian ceasefire violations, but that he ordered them to stand down, reinforcing U.S. authority in the unfolding events. While sanctions on Iran remain in effect, Trump clarified that Iran is allowed to sell oil to China as a form of compensation for the conflict, but that this policy could change at any time. He also stressed that President Putin of Russia was not involved in the ceasefire negotiations.
  • In the international aftermath, Israel managed to rally Western support for its actions. European leaders, including Macron, Merz, and Starmer, moved from supporting a return to the 2015 JCPOA to demanding zero enrichment, no ballistic missiles, and no Iranian proxies. The West publicly acknowledged Israel’s willingness to “do the dirty work” and expressed readiness to defend Israel and participate in its security, even while continuing diplomatic efforts with Iran under pressure.

 

 

The Fordow Attack

  • One of the campaign’s most controversial elements was the attack on the Fordow nuclear facility. President Trump declared the strike a “total obliteration,” asserting that Israeli agents were present at the site post-strike and confirming the scale of destruction. Israel announced it would publish a report supporting these claims.
  • The IDF spokesperson responded cautiously, saying all operational objectives were achieved, possibly even better than planned, but that it was too soon to reach final conclusions. The spokesperson emphasized trust in Israeli intelligence and referenced the IAEA director’s statement that Iran’s nuclear breakout capability had been pushed much further away, representing a “pre-operation Iran” and a “post-operation Iran” now far from the threshold.
  • However, American intelligence, including the Defense Intelligence Agency and independent analysts, expressed doubt, suggesting it was too early to assess the true extent of the damage. Media reports (such as CNN) highlighted the lack of immediate physical evidence for “obliteration,” and pointed out that while the attack may have set Iran’s program back years, the technical ability to rebuild remains.
  • Israel itself clarified that, while the strike delivered a significant blow, intelligence assessments and site investigations were ongoing.

 

Aftermath analysis

  • On the strategic level, Israel broke significant psychological and operational barriers, proving both its resolve to use force against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its capability to do so at significant risk. The campaign eliminated top Iranian military leaders and scientists, neutralized major air defense systems, and threw the Iranian regime off balance. Israel demonstrated an ability to operate special forces and intelligence assets deep inside Iran, as well as a willingness to attack regime symbols—military HQs, Basij centers, Evin Prison, and even cultural landmarks—humiliating the regime and exposing its vulnerabilities.
  • The main challenge moving forward is enforcing Iran’s diminished capabilities—ensuring it does not rebuild its nuclear or ballistic missile programs, and pushing for a stringent, enforceable inspection regime. This will require ongoing Western unity, Israeli deterrence, and creative diplomatic strategies.
  • The Iranian parliament responded by voting 222–0 to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), seeking to close off external oversight. Iran sent a formal letter to the UN Security Council demanding action against the U.S. and Israel for what it called “preemptive self-defense” attacks on its nuclear sites.

 

Potential for Regime Change

  • Domestically, there were no significant protests against the regime. This was not due to support for the government, but rather to shock, fear, and the rapid pace of events. Half of Tehran’s population evacuated, terrified by both airstrikes and the regime’s repressive apparatus. Many Iranians doubted that Israel or the U.S. would support an uprising, making them hesitant to act. The regime used the aftermath to arrest suspected collaborators, raid homes, confiscate drones and weapons, and even begin executions, further consolidating its power for now.
  • While there is growing talk of regime change— a newly normalized term in some circles—the reality is that such a process is complex, slow, and ultimately depends on internal Iranian developments. Israel and its allies can apply pressure and support dissent, but regime change is a long-term challenge that cannot be imposed from outside.

 

Moving Forward Analysis

  • Israel now faces a critical phase in securing the gains of the operation. The immediate priorities are twofold: first, to maintain and even tighten sanctions on Iran, preventing rapid recovery of its military and nuclear capabilities; and second, to translate the military achievements into a comprehensive and stringent diplomatic agreement, with active U.S. and Western involvement. Despite Trump’s tweet allowing China to buy Iranian oil, as of now, sanctions remain in effect, and no new U.S.–Iran diplomatic deal has been reached.
  • Israel must preserve its freedom of action in Iran to actively prevent the nuclear and missile threat from metastasizing, including repeated strikes per the “Lebanon model”. It is vital for Israel not to project weakness. The military must maintain ongoing pressure, normalize Israeli overflights in Iranian airspace, and avoid any sense of complacency. Historically, Israeli adversaries have seized on any sign of weakness; this war should be no exception. Iran will undoubtedly seek to learn from the conflict, rebuild its forces, and prepare for a future round of hostilities.
  • Moving forward, Israel must focus not only on military deterrence but also on “soft power”: diplomacy, supporting internal opposition, psychological operations, covert activities, and clear international demands that Iran halt its calls for Israel’s destruction.
  • Israel achieved nearly all of its military objectives without incurring significant costs, but this does not constitute final victory. True victory would only come if Iran or any future regime in Tehran formally recognized Israel and abandoned the drive to destroy it. Until then, both sides will continue to claim success, but the long-term outcome will depend on sustained strategic determination.