In the week long of sustained warfare between Iran and Israel, the Middle East again finds itself teetering on the edge of a catastrophe fueled more by arrogance than necessity. Israel’s premeditated assault— Operation Rising Lion— was a masterclass in tactical precision. But what it achieved in shock and awe, it lacks in long-term wisdom. In fact, it may go down as a historic example of how strategic overreach can rapidly become a geopolitical disaster.
The Israeli military’s precision strikes— targeting nuclear centrifuge sites in Tehran and Kahraj, IRGC command centers, and internal security facilities— demonstrated sophisticated coordination between cyber, air, and intelligence units. The High-value Targets (HVTs) of Iran were hit, and by Israeli metrics, success was swift and satisfying. The deaths of senior Iranian figures and the destruction of critical infrastructure gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a brief moment of triumph. But let’s not confuse a successful mission with a successful strategy.
If this story feels familiar, it should. We’ve seen it before: a powerful nation uses its military prowess to knock out a perceived threat in hopes of resetting the strategic chessboard. Yet what Israel has launched may not be a “decisive blow” to Iran’s nuclear ambition, but a reckless gamble that exposes the region— and the world— to further chaos.
Netanyahu’s calculus echoes the American misadventures in Iraq and Libya: eliminate a threat, provoke regime instability, and wait for “democracy” or “moderation” to rise from the ashes. The problem? This logic has failed in every instance. Instead of reform, chaos. Instead of democracy, militancy.
Israel’s strike may temporarily degrade Iran’s enrichment capacity, but Tehran has responded not with submission but retaliation— missile strikes on Israeli cities, civilian displacement, and a vow to resume uranium enrichment. Over 1,300 Israelis are displaced, while Iranian casualties exceed 639, with more than 1,300 wounded. This is not deterrence; it is the opening salvo of a wider war.
Israel’s military doctrine has long leaned on the idea of preemption— most notably in the 1967 Six-Day War. Back then, Israel faced existential threats from multiple Arab states. Today, the context is vastly different. Iran is indeed a threat— especially through its proxies— but it’s also a rational actor that has shown a willingness to negotiate, particularly under diplomatic pressure.
This time, Israel didn’t wait for an imminent threat. It struck first under the rationale that it “could not afford to wait.” That language— strikingly similar to the Bush Doctrine— should concern us all. The difference between a justified defence and reckless aggression is not just timing, but intention. Netanyahu didn’t seek to neutralize an immediate risk; he sought to revive his drowning political career through force.
Worse still, by violating Iran’s sovereignty without a clear international mandate, Israel sets a precedent. If preemptive strikes become normalized, then no state is safe— not even Israel.
Military victories are hollow when they ignite greater wars. The true test of leadership lies not in how effectively one can wage war, but in how urgently one seeks peace. If Israel believes that security can be bombed into existence, history offers a sobering reminder: preemptive wars rarely end as planned. The world cannot afford another Middle Eastern conflagration. It must act— not just with words, but with diplomacy, pressure, and clarity.
No analysis of this crisis is complete without examining the USA’s role—or lack thereof. President Trump, reviewing military options in the Situation Room, offered his characteristic ambiguity: “I may do it, I may not.” Translation: he wants leverage without responsibility.
And yet, Israel reportedly informed the USA in advance. The US response? Evacuate embassy staff and stay out of the way. That’s not leadership— it’s abdication. It sends a dangerous message: if you’re our ally, you’re free to pursue regional aggression without consequence. But when the fires spread, Washington’s moral clarity disappears.
The USA must ask itself what it gains from such inconsistency. If the goal is to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, then diplomacy, not drone strikes, is the only sustainable path. If it wants to prevent a regional war, then it must restrain Israel— not just Iran.
Still, Iran’s failures to repel Israeli attacks reveals serious weaknesses. The much-vaunted Bavar-373 air defence system proved ineffective. Cyberwarfare blinded radars. Israeli jets entered and exited Iranian airspace with minimal resistance.
Iran launched retaliatory drone attacks. Its proxies— armed and waiting— could soon have turned Israel’s northern and southern borders into permanent war zones. Escalation seemed inevitable until diplomacy intervened.
In a curious twist, Arab capitals responded with a mix of muted condemnation and tacit acceptance. Turkey called the strikes “state terrorism,” but Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt issued bland statements about “restraint.” Even Pakistan, historically vocal, has remained cautious.
This silence speaks volumes. Many Sunni Arab regimes— fearful of Iran’s regional ambitions— may quietly have welcomed Israel’s strike. The Abraham Accords had already normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. Now, strategic alignment against Iran may be replacing old rivalries.
But silence is not consent. Arab leaders worry that if Israel is allowed to strike with impunity, then the principle of sovereignty will erode further. What prevents a future attack on Damascus, Baghdad, or even Riyadh under similar justifications?
French President Emmanuel Macron warned against any attempts at regime change and pressed for an immediate halt to all airstrikes. The UN Secretary-General has called for restraint, as have Britain’s Keir Starmer and Germany’s Johann Wadephul.
Yet, meaningful diplomacy remains on life support. Israel, emboldened by its early success and emboldened further by Trump’s unpredictable backing, appears in no mood to talk. Iran, humiliated militarily, is in no mood to compromise. That’s a dangerous impasse.
Perhaps the most tragic result of Operation Rising Lion is the death of momentum toward a two-state solution. A major peace summit— co-sponsored by the UN, France, and Saudi Arabia— has been indefinitely postponed. By turning the world’s gaze from Gaza to Tehran, Netanyahu has cleverly neutralized international criticism of Israel’s actions in the West Bank.
But that’s a short-term deflection with long-term costs. Palestinians are once again left in the margins of global diplomacy. The broader Arab-Israeli reconciliation is now hostage to Israeli military adventurism.
Military victories are hollow when they ignite greater wars. The true test of leadership lies not in how effectively one can wage war, but in how urgently one seeks peace. If Israel believes that security can be bombed into existence, history offers a sobering reminder: preemptive wars rarely end as planned. The world cannot afford another Middle Eastern conflagration. It must act— not just with words, but with diplomacy, pressure, and clarity.
