683: FROM OSIRAK TO NATANZ: OPERATION RISING LION AS A CONTINUATION OF ISRAEL’S BEGIN DOCTRINE OF DENIAL

 

My Article published on “The EurasianTimes” website on 17 Jun 25. 

 

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a bold and sophisticated military campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile bases, and key military personnel. The operation, which struck sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, and killed high-ranking figures such as IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami, was a direct application of the Begin Doctrine—Israel’s strategic policy of pre-emptively denying adversaries the ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Named after Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who authorised the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, the doctrine has shaped Israel’s approach to regional threats for over four decades. This article examines Operation Rising Lion as a continuation of the Begin Doctrine, tracing its evolution from Osirak to Natanz, analysing its strategic execution, and exploring its implications for Israel’s security and regional stability.

 

The Begin Doctrine

The Begin Doctrine is a cornerstone of Israeli strategic policy, centered on the pre-emptive prevention of adversaries, particularly in the Middle East, from acquiring nuclear weapons that could pose an existential threat to Israel. Named after former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the doctrine emerged following Israel’s airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981, known as Operation Opera. It reflects Israel’s commitment to ensuring its survival in a region surrounded by hostile states, some of which have historically pursued nuclear capabilities.

Key Principles of the Begin Doctrine include the following:-

    • Pre-emptive Action. Israel reserves the right to use military force to prevent any hostile state or non-state actor from developing nuclear weapons.
    • Existential Threat Mitigation. The doctrine prioritises neutralising capabilities that could enable adversaries to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), notably nuclear weapons.
    • Unilateral Action. Israel will act independently if necessary, even without international approval or coordination, to safeguard its security.
    • Deterrence and Regional Dominance. By demonstrating its willingness and ability to strike pre-emptively, Israel reinforces its military superiority and deters adversaries. Historical Context and Application.

 

Historical Precedents: Osirak and Orchard

Operation Opera (1981). On June 7, 1981, eight Israeli F-16s, escorted by F-15s, flew 1,100 kilometers to destroy Iraq’s Osirak reactor, a French-built facility suspected of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The strike was meticulously planned, relying on intelligence from Mossad and defectors. Despite international outrage, including a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel, the operation delayed Iraq’s nuclear program significantly. It established the Begin Doctrine as a proactive strategy, emphasising Israel’s willingness to act alone to ensure its survival.

Operation Orchard (2007). On September 6, 2007, Israel struck Syria’s Al-Kibar nuclear reactor in Deir ez-Zor, believed to be a North Korean-designed plutonium facility. The operation, kept secret for months, involved precision airstrikes by F-16s and F-15s, supported by cyberwarfare and Mossad intelligence. Unlike Osirak, Orchard faced minimal international backlash, partly due to Syria’s secrecy and the operation’s surgical nature. It reinforced the Begin Doctrine’s adaptability, incorporating advanced technology and covert tactics to neutralise emerging threats.

Both operations demonstrated Israel’s ability to combine intelligence, air superiority, and strategic surprise, setting the stage for Operation Rising Lion’s complexity.

 

Operation Rising Lion: A Modern Application

Launched on June 13, 2025, Operation Rising Lion targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, reflecting the Begin Doctrine’s evolution in scale, technology, and geopolitical context. Iran’s nuclear program, by 2025, posed an unprecedented challenge, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting enough enriched uranium for up to 15 nuclear bombs. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the operation as a “12th-hour” necessity to prevent a “nuclear holocaust,” echoing Begin’s rhetoric from 1981.

Strategic Execution. Operation Rising Lion was a multi-domain assault, integrating air, cyber, and covert operations. Over 200 Israeli aircraft, including F-35s, struck key nuclear sites, the Natanz Enrichment Complex, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the Arak Heavy Water Facility and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Missile bases like Asfajaabad, IRGC command centers, and air defence systems were hit. Mossad-activated drones and smuggled munitions neutralised launchers and radars, ensuring air superiority. The operation killed key figures, including IRGC leaders Hossein Salami, Mohammad Bagheri, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and nuclear scientists like Fereydoon Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, crippling Iran’s command and expertise. Mossad’s covert operations, including a secret drone base near Tehran and disinformation about diplomatic rifts, misled Iran’s leadership into underestimating the attack.

Scale and Impact.  Operation Rising Lion was unprecedented in scope, targeting over 100 sites with 330 munitions. Iran reported 78–128 deaths, including 20 children, and over 320 injuries, particularly in Tehran’s residential areas, sparking international criticism. The IAEA confirmed no radiation leaks, indicating precise strikes. The operation delayed Iran’s nuclear program, damaged its military infrastructure, and disrupted its chain of command, reinforcing Israel’s regional dominance.

 

Iran’s Response: Operation True Promise III. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “severe punishment,” describing Israel’s actions as a “doomed aggression based on a grave miscalculation.”  Iran retaliated with Operation True Promise III (Persian: Va’de-ye Sādeq III), which began on the evening of June 13, 2025, approximately 18 hours after Israel’s initial strikes. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) led the operation, supported by Iran’s armed forces and possibly proxy groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Iran fired “dozens” to “hundreds” of ballistic missiles and drones, targeting Israeli military centres, airbases, and strategic sites, including the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv. Specific targets included Nevatim, Hatzerim, and Tel Nof airbases, which house advanced Israeli fighter jets like F-35s and F-15s. The operation involved waves of attacks, with ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones aimed at overwhelming Israel’s multilayered air defences, including the Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems. While Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems, aided by U.S., British, and French forces, intercepted most projectiles, some strikes caused damage in Tel Aviv, injuring 21–95 people. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the strikes a “crushing response”.

Analytical Perspectives

Continuity and Evolution of the Begin Doctrine. Operation Rising Lion reflects the Begin Doctrine’s continuity and evolution. Like Osirak and Orchard, Rising Lion was a unilateral, preemptive strike to deny an adversary nuclear capability. Israel acted without U.S. involvement, prioritising national security over international approval, and justified the operation as existential. The operation’s scale—over 200 aircraft and 100 targets—dwarfs previous strikes. It integrated advanced technologies (AI-assisted targeting, drones, cyberwarfare) and Mossad’s covert infrastructure, showcasing Israel’s technological edge. Unlike Osirak’s single-target focus or Orchard’s secrecy, Rising Lion was a broad assault on nuclear, military, and leadership targets, reflecting the complexity of Iran’s threat.

Strategic and Ethical Challenges. The Begin Doctrine’s application in Operation Rising Lion raises significant issues.

    • Strategic Success. The operation delayed Iran’s nuclear program, possibly by years, and weakened its military leadership and missile capabilities. It reinforced Israel’s deterrence, signalling to adversaries like Hezbollah and the Houthis that escalation would be costly.
    • Escalation Risks. Though limited, Iran’s Operation True Promise III underscores the potential for a broader conflict. The Houthis’ missile strike on Hebron and possible proxy involvement from Iraq and Syria highlight the regional ripple effects.
    • Ethical Concerns. Civilian casualties, including 20 children in Tehran, drew condemnation from the UN, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Critics argue the doctrine’s preemptive nature risks disproportionate harm, complicating Israel’s international standing.
    • Limitations. Deeply buried facilities like Fordow remain resistant to conventional strikes, suggesting the doctrine’s reliance on airpower may need adaptation for future threats.

Geopolitical Impact. Operation Rising Lion has transformed the Middle East’s strategic landscape. By eliminating key Iranian leaders and damaging critical infrastructure, Israel has significantly weakened Iran’s regional influence, though its proxy groups, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, remain active. Global oil prices have surged 8% amid fears of supply disruptions, sending ripples through international markets. The United States backed Israel’s defensive measures but called for restraint, while Russia offered to mediate and Saudi Arabia adopted a cautious approach, highlighting the region’s complex dynamics. The breakdown of scheduled U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Oman underscores the diplomatic fallout of Israel’s Begin Doctrine.

Israel’s Strategic Blind Spot: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program.  Israel’s Begin Doctrine prioritises pre-emptive strikes against adversaries developing nuclear weapons, yet Pakistan’s nuclear program, successful by 1998, never prompted Israeli action. This stems from geopolitical and strategic factors. Unlike Iraq, Syria, or Iran, Pakistan lies outside Israel’s immediate Middle Eastern sphere of influence, reducing its perceived threat. Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions were primarily driven by rivalry with India, not hostility toward Israel. Diplomatic relations, though limited, existed indirectly, and Pakistan’s leadership, including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf, avoided framing Israel as a primary enemy. Israel’s intelligence, via Mossad, likely assessed Pakistan’s program as India-focused, not aimed at Tel Aviv. Additionally, U.S. influence, a mutual ally, restrained escalation, as Pakistan’s nuclear development was tacitly accepted to counter India. Thus, Israel conserved resources for proximate threats like Iran, aligning with the Begin Doctrine’s focus on existential risks.

 

Conclusion

From Osirak to Natanz, the Begin Doctrine has guided Israel’s strategy to prevent nuclear proliferation among its adversaries. With its unprecedented scale and technological sophistication, Operation Rising Lion represents the doctrine’s most ambitious application yet. By targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile bases, and leadership, Israel reaffirmed its commitment to existential security, even at the cost of regional escalation and international criticism. However, the operation’s success in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions comes with challenges: fortified sites like Fordow, retaliatory risks, and ethical questions about civilian casualties. As of this date, the Israel-Iran conflict remains volatile, with the Begin Doctrine both a shield for Israel’s survival and a catalyst for regional tensions. The doctrine’s future will depend on Israel’s ability to adapt its pre-emptive strategy to an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1818
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Israel ‘Spares’ Pakistan Under Its Begin Doctrine! Why IDF Bombed Iraq, Syria & Iran’s Nuclear Facilities But Left Pakistan?

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2025, June 12). Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program Compliance. Vienna: IAEA.
  1. United Nations. (2025, June 13). Statement by Secretary-General António Guterres on Israeli Airstrikes in Iran. New York: United Nations Press Office.
  1. Al Jazeera. (2025, June 14). “Iran Vows ‘Harsh Response’ After Israeli Strikes on Nuclear Sites.” Al Jazeera English.
  1. BBC News. (2025, June 13). “Israel Launches Operation Rising Lion: What We Know About the Strikes on Iran.” BBC World Service.
  1. Reuters. (2025, June 15). “Oil Prices Surge as Israel-Iran Tensions Escalate After Operation Rising Lion.” Reuters.
  1. The Jerusalem Post. (2025, June 13). “Netanyahu: Operation Rising Lion Prevented Nuclear Holocaust.” The Jerusalem Post.
  1. The New York Times. (2025, June 14). “Mossad’s Covert Role in Israel’s Strike on Iran Revealed.” The New York Times.
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025, June 14). Operation Rising Lion: Assessing Israel’s Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program. Washington, DC: CSIS.
  1. Institute for National Security Studies. (2025, June 15). The Geopolitical Fallout of Operation Rising Lion. Tel Aviv: INSS.
  1. Israel Defence Forces. (2025, June 13). Official Statement on Operation Rising Lion. Jerusalem: IDF Press Office.
  1. U.S. Department of State. (2025, June 13). Press Briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Israel-Iran Conflict. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
  1. Bergman, Ronen. (2018). Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations. New York: Random House.
  1. Pollack, Kenneth M. (2021). The Persian Puzzle: Iran’s Strategic Challenge. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

624: F-35 Stealth Vs Beast Mode

 

Israel’s recent revelation about deploying the F-35 in beast mode, carrying weapons externally during aerial strikes, prompts a deeper exploration. This strategic decision, while compromising the aircraft’s stealth, is a calculated move. The understanding of going beast mode over Gaza, with its negligible air defence, is clear. However, the prospect of employing this mode in Lebanon or Iran, with their formidable air defences, presents a complex operational challenge. This raises the question: what are the operational intricacies of using the beast mode in such scenarios?

 

The F-35, in its ‘stealth mode,’ carries weapons internally, effectively reducing its radar signature. However, when it transitions to ‘beast mode,’ carrying weapons externally, it sacrifices this stealth advantage for increased firepower. This Trade-off is a crucial consideration in military operations.

 

In “beast mode,” it carries additional munitions on external pylons. This configuration increases the aircraft’s radar cross-section (RCS), making it more detectable by enemy radar.

 

Beast mode increases the F-35’s firepower by allowing it to carry more ordnance, maximising strike efficiency against numerous ground targets.

 

However, Israel’s use of the F-35 in beast mode likely depends on the specific operational environment and objectives.

 

The Beast Mode can be used in the following operational scenarios:-

    • The enemy has no air defence capability or weapons.
    • SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) missions have degraded the enemy’s radar and SAM capabilities.
    • One way to mitigate the risks of flying in beast mode is by staying out of the enemy’s air defence weapons range. This can be achieved through intelligence-supported operational planning and/or stand-off attacks. The role of intelligence and meticulous planning in these operations cannot be overstated.
    • Using escort and suppression support from electronic warfare platforms to mitigate the risks of flying in beast mode.

 

Low Threat Environment (Gaza Strikes). Against Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, stealth is unnecessary since they lack sophisticated radar-guided air defences. Beast mode can be used in a risk environment to maximise firepower.

 

Lebanon (Hezbollah) Strikes. Hezbollah has comparatively more advanced air defence capabilities than Hamas, including Iranian-made radars and some older Russian SAMs. Beast mode can be used in a medium-risk environment by avoiding enemy air defences.

 

Iran Strikes—A Different Challenge. Iran operates a more sophisticated air defence network. Using beast mode over Iran would be risky because the F-35 would be much more visible on Iranian radar, and Iran’s long-range SAMs could engage the aircraft before it reaches the target. Beast mode can be used in a high-risk environment after neutralising enemy air defences.

 

Link to the article by Sakshi Tiwari :-

After 1st Combat Use Of F-35, Israel Achieves Another First By Flying Adir Stealth Fighters In “Beast Mode”

Please Do Comment.

 

1818
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

560:OPERATION BASHAN ARROW: ISAREL’S STRATEGIC NEED OR OPPORTUNISM

 

Pics Courtesy Net

 

My Article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 16 Dec 24.

 

Operation Bashan Arrow, a pivotal Israeli military campaign, commenced in a volatile and fractured Syria on 08 December 2024. Named after the ancient biblical region of Bashan, which included parts of the modern-day Golan Heights, the operation targeted the dismantling of Syrian military capabilities following the fall of the Assad regime. The operation has profound implications for regional stability, geopolitics, and military strategy.

 

Background and Objectives. The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in late 2024 led to a chaotic power vacuum. This collapse came amidst years of internal strife, international intervention, and the rising influence of extremist factions like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). For Israel, the disintegration of the Assad regime posed both risks and opportunities. The risk was the proliferation of advanced weapons to hostile actors, especially Iranian proxies and extremist groups. The opportunity was to secure the strategically vital Golan Heights further and neutralise long-standing threats from the Syrian military. Israel launched Operation Bashan Arrow to prevent advanced weaponry, including missiles and aircraft, from falling into hostile hands, notably Iranian-backed militias or extremist groups. This was critical for securing the Israeli-Syrian border and neutralising threats to Israel’s northern front.

 

Execution of the Operation. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) deployed an unprecedented 350 aircraft, about half the Israeli Air Force, conducting hundreds of sorties across Syria. It was one of its most comprehensive air campaigns in history. Key targets included military bases, air defence systems, missile stockpiles, and command centres in Damascus, Tartus, Homs, and Latakia. The operation obliterated Syrian air capabilities, including MiG-29 fighter jets and cruise missiles. Simultaneously, the Israeli Navy targeted Syria’s naval fleet, destroying 15 missile-equipped vessels at the al-Beida and Latakia ports. This eliminated maritime threats, securing Israel’s coastal borders and reducing risks to international shipping lanes. On land, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) moved to establish a buffer zone in the demilitarised area along the Golan Heights. The IDF denied crossing into core Syrian territory, maintaining operations within the zone to prevent spillover effects from the conflict. Operation Bashan Arrow was a comprehensive demonstration of the effectiveness of coordinated multi-domain operations. Israel’s use of air, naval, and ground forces, combined with intelligence-driven targeting, underscores the evolution of military strategy in asymmetric conflicts.

 

Strategic and Tactical Impact. Operation Bashan Arrow dismantled 70–80% of Syria’s military assets. The destruction of strategic stockpiles prevented terrorist organisations from utilising advanced weaponry. Notably, this operation has significantly shifted the balance of power in the region. Iran, a key backer of Assad, now faces reduced influence in Syria, while Israel solidifies its strategic position. However, this could push Iran to intensify its proxy activities elsewhere, such as in Lebanon or Iraq.

 

Regional and International Reactions. The operation drew criticism from Arab nations and international observers, who accused Israel of overreach and destabilisation. The concerns of the international community were palpable, with Arab states condemning the operation, particularly the IDF’s occupation of the buffer zone. They viewed it as a violation of Syrian sovereignty, even in the absence of a stable Syrian government. Qatari media labelled it an “escalation” and accused Israel of exploiting Syria’s disarray. The United Nations expressed grave concerns over regional instability, urging de-escalation to foster a political transition in Syria. Geir Pedersen, the UN envoy to Syria, emphasised the need for de-escalation to facilitate Syria’s political transition. Critics argued that Israel’s actions could further complicate humanitarian efforts in the region.

 

Regional Security and Israel’s Position. For Israel, the operation underscored its military superiority and willingness to act unilaterally for national security, even at the risk of provoking a backlash from neighbouring countries and militant groups. The campaign also demonstrated the Israeli military’s advanced capabilities in air, sea, and cyber warfare.

 

Challenges and Future Implications. While the operation was a tactical success, it strained Israel’s relations with the international community at large. The creation of a buffer zone may temporarily stabilise the border but could invite retaliatory actions from groups opposed to Israel’s presence. With significant infrastructure destroyed, Syria faces additional challenges in rebuilding. This could prolong instability and make the country more vulnerable to external manipulation by regional powers. Additionally, HTS’s rise complicates Israel’s security calculus, as the group with an Islamist ideology creates uncertainty about pragmatic coexistence with Israel. The long-term implications of these developments are complex and uncertain, adding a layer of gravity to the situation.

 

Conclusion. Operation Bashan Arrow represents a defining moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics; it reflects the complexities of modern warfare and the Middle East’s geopolitical challenges. By neutralising Syrian military capabilities, Israel has secured its borders in the short term. However, the operation’s long-term ramifications for regional stability are yet to be fully understood. As Syria grapples with reconstruction and a new political reality, Israel would have to navigate a complex web of alliances and adversaries to maintain its strategic edge. The operation’s impact on the balance of power in the region and the potential for increased proxy activities by Iran in other countries underscores the need for continued analysis and vigilance.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

Link to the article on the website:-

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/op-bashan-arrow-how-350-israeli-fighte/

 

1818
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Jerusalem Post. “Israel destroys 80% of Assad’s army in Syria.” December 2024.
  2. All Israel News. “IDF strikes 320 targets in Syria during Operation Bashan Arrow.” tps://allisrael.com/idf-we-destroyed-up-to-80-of-syr

​3. Middle East Monitor. “Operation Bashan Arrow and its implications.”

UN Reports on the Middle East, December 2024

  1. Times of Israel, “IDF announces conclusion of Operation Bashan Arrow, says Syria no longer a threat”.
  1. Haaretz, “Israel’s bold military campaign: What Bashan Arrow means for the region”. Dec 2024.
  1. UN Reports on the Middle East, “Regional stability in question after Israeli strikes in Syria”, December 2024.
  1. Al Jazeera, “Israel’s strikes in Syria spark Arab world criticism”, Dec 2024.
  1. BBC News, “Syria in turmoil: The aftermath of Assad”, Dec 2024.
  1. Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Israel’s Operation Bashan Arrow: A case study in air supremacy”, Dec 2024.
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “Preemptive Defense: Israel’s new doctrine in Operation Bashan Arrow”, Dec 2024.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

English हिंदी