Israel has launched Operation Rising Lion, a targeted military campaign against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The move comes amid heightened regional tensions and renewed international efforts to contain Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the operation in a televised address, calling it essential for Israel’s national survival and vowing it would continue “as many days as it takes.”
The operation targeted nuclear facilities, including Natanz, and reportedly killed several scientists and military personnel tied to Iran’s weapons development.
While Israel sees the action as a continuation of its doctrine of preemptive self-defense, the U.S. response has taken a notable turn.
A Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement confirming that the United States was not involved in the strikes.
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 13, 2025
This reflects a strategic shift under President Trump’s administration, which has emphasized avoiding new military entanglements in the Middle East.
Rubio stressed that American troops—numbering over 2,500 in Iraq and Syria—would be protected, but no additional action would be taken unless directly provoked.
This aligns with the Trump administration’s broader policy to “end endless wars,” while also maintaining strong diplomatic ties with Israel.
Israel Acts Alone, as It Has Before
Israel’s strike is not unprecedented.
In 1981, it destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In 2007, it bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear facility. In both cases, Israel acted without direct U.S. support.
These past operations form a clear pattern: Israel does not wait for international consensus when it sees an existential threat.
Today’s strike follows similar logic, though the timing is sensitive.
Just one day prior, NBC News reported ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations aiming to cap uranium enrichment and offer sanctions relief.
Israel’s military action is widely seen as a rejection of that diplomatic path.
Risks of Escalation
Iran has vowed retaliation.
According to U.S. defense officials, the Pentagon is already repositioning naval assets and upgrading missile defense systems near American bases in the region.
While 40,000 U.S. troops remain in the broader Middle East, the administration insists it is committed to de-escalation.
The threat of conflict spilling over is real. RAND data suggests that preemptive strikes like this can increase the risk of regional warfare by 70%.
Iran could retaliate through direct missile attacks, cyber operations, or through proxy groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis.
What Americans Think
Public opinion in the U.S. reflects the complexity of the moment.
Many Americans support strong alliances, but not open-ended wars.
Trump’s foreign policy— “America First” but diplomatically engaged—taps into this sentiment.
Looking Ahead
Diplomatically, this operation may strain U.S. efforts with Iran and unsettle multilateral efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
A U.N. Security Council emergency session is expected within the next 24 hours.
The longer-term question is whether this marks a new chapter in U.S.-Israel relations—one where diplomatic support continues, but military cooperation becomes more conditional.
Rubio’s statement, and the administration’s broader stance, suggest that possibility.
Final Thoughts
Operation Rising Lion reflects a world where threats evolve quickly and alliances must adapt.
Israel is acting from a deep sense of self-preservation.
The U.S., under a more restrained foreign policy, is signaling that not every ally’s fight will be America’s fight.
This moment underscores the difficulty of balancing strong alliances with national interest, and of ensuring peace without being drawn into another war.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
