Operation Roaring Lion, conducted alongside the U.S. military’s Operation Epic Fury, continues the war against Iran that began in June 2025 with Operation Rising Lion. The campaign targets the Islamic Republic’s political and military leadership, its nuclear program, and its missile arsenal. It has also adopted the more ambitious objective of weakening the regime in order to create conditions for the Iranian public to rise up against it and bring it down. The operation reflects a security doctrine that employs preemptive, and even preventive, military action.
Confronting regimes driven by expansionist ideology sometimes requires the use of force. Iran’s clerical leadership promotes a radical Shiite worldview with apocalyptic undertones and treats Western moral constraints as strategic weakness. For decades, the regime has paired ideological hostility, captured in the slogans “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” with a systematic strategy of proxy warfare. Tehran sponsors and directs a network of proxy militias across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq. These groups destabilize existing states and form the operational backbone of Iran’s campaign to destroy Israel. Iranian activity has also reached beyond the region, extending into Europe and North America through terrorist networks and assassination plots targeting figures such as Donald Trump. In scope and persistence, Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
The U.S. and Israeli air forces have already secured air superiority in the current campaign. They are able to strike with little effective resistance and the campaign is progressing largely as planners anticipated. It remains too early to draw firm conclusions about the overall outcome of the campaign. However, several strategic implications are already coming into focus.
The campaign highlights an unprecedented level of military cooperation between the United States and Israel. Since Israel’s transfer to the area of responsibility of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in January 2021, operational coordination between the two militaries has deepened steadily. The joint planning and execution of the current operation represents the culmination of that process. Israel has again demonstrated its strategic value to Washington, particularly in contrast to the reluctance of other American allies in the Middle East and Europe to participate directly in the fighting. The visible closeness between Jerusalem and Washington therefore constitutes an important diplomatic and deterrent asset for Israel.
At the same time, the war remains politically contested within the United States. Anti-Israel activists have circulated conspiracy theories claiming that Jews pushed President Donald Trump into a war with Iran. Declining public support for Israel in the United States, a trend that began during the Gaza war, has further complicated the political environment surrounding the campaign.
Nevertheless, Israel’s military performance and its demonstrated intelligence superiority have left a strong impression both regionally and internationally. Israel’s air defense technology again proved highly effective. During the first days of the war, the country’s multilayered defense systems achieved an interception rate of roughly 90 percent against drones and ballistic missiles. As missile technology spreads and the likelihood of its use in armed conflicts increases, more states will seek systems capable of protecting critical infrastructure and civilian populations. Some of that demand is likely to be met by Israel’s defense industries.
Iran’s willingness to strike Gulf Arab states; Turkey, a member of NATO; and Cyprus, a member of the European Union, has heightened perceptions of the Iranian threat and reinforced hostility toward Tehran among a growing number of states. The attack on Azerbaijan, an energy exporter, and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, have disrupted global energy markets and driven oil prices upward. Tehran appears to be widening the conflict in order to raise the costs of continuing the war and increase pressure for its termination, a gamble whose success is far from certain. Iran’s escalation is also sharpening historical Sunni–Shiite tensions. For now, Tehran’s conduct is deepening its regional and international isolation.
Even if the regime survives, restoring relations with neighboring states will prove difficult. The confrontation between Iran and Israel is therefore likely to remain a central feature of the regional system and a continuing source of instability.
Iran’s current predicament further weakens the anti-American “Shiite axis,” a process that began during the Swords of Iron war following the Hamas massacre of October 2023 and continued with the Twelve-Day War of June 2025. The implications may extend beyond the Middle East, as Iran has established terrorist networks within Shiite communities across Latin America, North America, and Western Europe.
The future of the revolutionary Shiite regime remains uncertain. Even so, the assumption that the Iranian public could overthrow the ayatollahs’ rule appears overly optimistic as long as the regime remains willing and able to use lethal force against demonstrators. In the absence of an armed opposition, the regime is likely to endure, though in a weakened state. Attempts to rely on minority-based forces, such as Kurds or Baloch, could instead provoke Persian nationalist sentiment and fears of territorial fragmentation, dynamics that may ultimately strengthen the regime’s chances of survival.
Iran’s weakening does not herald a more peaceful Middle East. The region remains crowded with entrenched conflicts, and the use of force continues to be a common instrument of statecraft. Several governments remain fragile and struggle to restrain armed militias operating within their borders. The Middle East is therefore likely to remain a source of Islamist terrorism and recurring violent crises. Iran’s attacks on its neighbors will also heighten threat perceptions across the region.
The heavy defeats suffered by Iran and its proxies have created a vacuum now being filled by a radical Sunni axis centered on Turkey and supported by Qatar. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and many within his party represent a Turkish variant of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical and anti-Western movement that also encompasses nostalgia for the former Ottoman Empire. Erdoğan’s Turkey is pursuing nuclear capabilities. The United States has traditionally regarded Turkey as an important ally, and President Donald Trump views Erdoğan as a strong leader and a friend. Such assessments tend to overlook Turkish policies that are increasingly at odds with its status as a Western ally.
Erdoğan’s attempts to dissuade the United States from striking Iran failed, and his offer to mediate between Washington and Tehran received little enthusiasm in the American capital. In several Sunni states, however, his posture has been viewed more favorably. These governments worry that a new leadership in Tehran might eventually reconsider Iran’s hostility toward Israel, potentially leading to a further increase in Israel’s regional power. Under such circumstances, the logic of preserving a regional balance of power could draw many states closer to Turkey, one of the Middle East’s most powerful states.
Turkey’s capabilities and ambitions receive generous financial backing from Qatar, which has for years funded Muslim Brotherhood activity around the world. Its media mouthpiece, Al Jazeera, functions as a prominent platform amplifying Islamist narratives globally. Unlike Iran, however, Qatar has largely succeeded in presenting itself in Washington as a partner, despite its continuing support for Islamist movements and other anti-Western actors. Western governments have therefore misjudged both Turkey and Qatar.
The Middle East, the cradle of Western civilization, remains an arena of struggle against it. Anti-Western ideas rooted in extremist interpretations of Islam continue to resonate across the region. Combined with narratives promoted by segments of the radical left, these ideas also find receptive audiences in parts of the West. The unusual sympathy shown toward Hamas, a militant Islamist organization, illustrates the extent of this moral confusion.
Israel’s opening air strike, which eliminated key figures in Iran’s political and military leadership, set a precedent for the targeted killing of a head of state. It sends a warning to leaders of rogue regimes, particularly following the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Decapitating political leadership may therefore become a more common instrument of warfare. The long-term effects remain uncertain, but such operations immediately complicate decision making for the attacked regime. The visible depth of intelligence penetration can also generate demoralization and internal suspicion within the attacked regime. The strike further illustrated the decisive role intelligence now plays in modern warfare.
Iran’s nuclear program has long challenged the international nonproliferation regime embodied in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Tehran enriched uranium to levels close to weapons grade while covertly pursuing weaponization. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure therefore strengthens the NPT regime and sends a powerful deterrent signal to other states with nuclear ambitions, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, as well as to aspirants beyond the Middle East.
America’s willingness to employ military force challenges the widespread belief in the primacy of diplomacy and the prevailing reluctance to use force in international affairs. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the subsequent failure of diplomatic efforts to end that war, already began to shift Western thinking on this issue. The inability of American diplomacy to secure meaningful concessions from Iran has further reinforced that reassessment, and the current military operation is likely to accelerate it.
The attacks also raise questions about the reliability of Tehran’s principal partners, China and Russia. Both have once again refrained from intervening and have left Iran to face the assault on its own. Their restraint may deepen doubts about their credibility as strategic partners, particularly among countries in the developing world. By contrast, the United States has stood firmly alongside Israel, signaling that it remains an actively engaged global power. Washington’s ability to project military power far from its borders with little meaningful opposition suggests that the international system is less multipolar than many assume. For those who value freedom and tolerance, this reality may offer a measure of reassurance.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
