How many times have you heard the phrase “controlled escalation” in recent months? Forget it. The attack in Iran last night has pulverized every theory about the gradual management of Middle Eastern conflicts.
Netanyahu has gone for broke: instead of waiting for Tehran to complete its nuclear arsenal, he has decided to wipe it out with 200 tons of explosives. The result is a region in flames and a world holding its breath. Because what happened in Tehran is not just news, it is the point of no return in a crisis that has been brewing for years. And now Iran must decide: suffer in silence or respond with fire?
The Night That Changed the Middle East
Operation Rising Lion began at 3 a.m. on Friday, June 13, with incredible military coordination. Two hundred Israeli F-35 and F-16 fighters They crossed the airspace of three countries to reach Iranian targets, simultaneously hitting eight strategic sites. American intelligence had foreseen this scenario, but the scale of the attack exceeded all expectations.
Benjamin Netanyahu he justified the operation with words that leave no room for interpretation:
“Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. It was a clear and present danger to Israel’s survival.”
The Israeli Prime Minister spoke of a “point of no return” reached by the Iranian nuclear program, with stockpiles of uranium enriched to 60% that According to the IAEA, they amount to approximately 165 kilograms.
The main targets included the site of Christmas, the heart of Iranian uranium enrichment, already hit in the past by Stuxnet computer virus, and the secret military base of parchment on the outskirts of Tehran. The explosions lit up the night sky of the Iranian capital, as air defense systems struggled to intercept Israeli missiles.
Attack in Iran, the high-profile deaths and the expected reaction
The attack decapitated Iran's military leadership with surgical precision. Among the victims confirmed by Iranian state media are Hossein Salamis, commander in chief of the Pasdaran, Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, and at least two leading nuclear scientists: Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi e Fereydoun Abbasi.
The Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei promised a “harsh and painful punishment,” while Iran’s foreign minister said Tehran had a “legal and legitimate right” to respond. But initial official reactions seemed more cautious than expected. As we have already observed in the past, Iran tends to calibrate its responses to avoid an uncontrollable escalation.
Iranian intelligence had received warnings from a “friendly country” about the possibility of the attack, but evidently the defensive preparation was not sufficient. The speed and coordination of the Israeli operation also surprised the Russian S-300 systems protecting some strategic sites.
Trump and the failure of diplomacy
The timing of the attack in Iran reveals the deep rift between Donald Trump and Netanyahu on the management of the Iranian crisis. The American president had placed all his bets on indirect negotiations mediated by Oman, with the sixth round of talks scheduled for Sunday. Trump had also blocked previous Israeli attack plans, preferring the diplomatic route.
The secretary of state Marco Rubio he immediately clarified the American position: "This is a unilateral action by Israel. We are not involved in the attacks against Iran". A clear distancing that does not hide Washington's embarrassment (nor the suspicions about a fake contrast that actually hides a tacit agreement), forced to manage the consequences of a decision taken without its consent.
In any case, the White House urgently convened the National Security Council, while the Pentagon authorized the evacuation of families of military personnel from all over the Middle East. The United States is reducing its diplomatic presence in Iraq, Bahrain and Kuwait, fearing Iranian retaliation against American bases.
Attack in Iran, the scenarios that open up
The attack opens up three possible scenarios, all fraught with risks.
The first is that of limited retaliation: Iran could respond with targeted attacks against Israel, using ballistic missiles and drones, trying to avoid direct American involvement. This is the most likely scenario, considering that Tehran has already tried this tactic in past confrontations.
The second scenario is that ofregional escalation: Iran could activate its regional allies, from the Yemeni Houthis to the Iraqi militias, opening multiple fronts against Israel and American bases. This would force the United States into direct military involvement, turning the conflict into a regional war.
The third scenario, the most dangerous, is that of the total war: if Iran decided to definitively withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and massively accelerated its nuclear program, Israel could feel obliged to launch new preventive strikes. A spiral that could drag the entire region into an unprecedented conflict.
The Legacy of a Night of Fire
Operation “Rising Lion” marks the end of the era of indirect nuclear deterrence in the Middle East. Netanyahu has shown that he is willing to act even without American consent, redefining regional balances. But it has also opened a phase of total uncertainty, where every move can trigger unpredictable consequences.
Iran must now choose between wounded dignity and survival. Because if it is true that this attack has slowed down the Iranian nuclear program, it is equally true that it has made Tehran more furious than ever.
