Netanyahu's Gambit? A deep dive into the factors behind 'Operation Rising Lion'
Starting on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a massive attack on Iran. The unprovoked attack, which it labelled as `Operation Rising Lion,' was the culmination of tensions that had been building for decades. To understand why Israel carried out the attack, it is essential to examine several key historical, political and strategic factors that influence the relationship between the two countries. A handout picture provided by the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office shows him waving during a ceremony on the occasion of 36rd death anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran on June 4, 2025. Khamenei vowed on June 18, 2025 that his country would show no mercy towards Israel's rulers, hours after US President Donald Trump demanded Tehran's "unconditional surrender". (Photo by KHAMENEI.IR / AFP)
Pre-Revolutionary Iran-Israel Relations
Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran, under the rule of King Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, had established good relations with Israel.
This situation arose due to the good relations between the Iranian government and the United States government, which, through its spy agency, the CIA and in collaboration with the British MI6, had carried out Operation Ajax in 1953 to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh and restore Mohammad Reza Shah to the throne after the latter had fled abroad.
Mossadegh had earlier nationalised Iran's oil industry, so the primary motives of the United States and Britain were to safeguard Western oil interests and counter the influence of the Soviet Union.
After 1953, the United States provided military aid to strengthen the Reza Shah Pahlavi regime while profiting from billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons sales to Iran, such as F-14 Tomcat fighter jets.
However, King Reza Shah's extravagant lifestyle, while most Iranians lived in poverty, made many dissatisfied with his rule.
An iron-fisted approach toward the people also characterised his rule.
Through the Savak intelligence agency, his regime arrested and tortured thousands of Iranians who dared to challenge his authority.
The growing dissatisfaction and hatred of the Iranian people eventually led to the violent revolution in 1979 that toppled him and forced him into exile to the US and later to Mexico, Panama and Egypt, where he eventually died.
Post-Revolution Attitude towards Israel
The previous good relations between King Reza Shah and the US gave rise to anti-American attitudes among Iranians during and after the revolution.
Iranians perceived the US as directly interfering in Iran's affairs and stealing its resources.
This attitude hardened during the post-revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran, led by Ayatollah Khomeini.
He severed diplomatic relations with the United States and Israel. Khomeini even called Israel the "little devil" and the United States the "great devil".
Indirect War
However, until very recently, Iran and Israel chose not to engage in any direct conflicts.
Instead, they were engaged in what can be called a `shadow war' where Iran will use proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel using weapons supplied by Iran.
Other proxies are Shiite militia movements in Iraq and Yemen.
Meanwhile, Israel also avoided attacking Iran directly before this. Instead, Israel only attacked through cyber warfare, such as the usage of the `Stuxnet virus' to undermine Iran's nuclear programme.
In addition, Israel was also believed to be behind the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020.
Direct Conflict After October 2023
However, the conflict between the two countries became more intense following Hamas's Operation on October 7, 2023 and Hezbollah's launching of rockets and artillery attacks on Israeli positions in the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights, areas illegally occupied by Israel.
Hezbollah declared this action as an action to show "solidarity with the Palestinian people" and an effort to divert the focus of Israeli forces from Gaza.
Israel responded to the attack on September 27, 2024, by bombing Hezbollah's facilities on the outskirts of South Beirut, killing Hezbollah's prominent leader in Lebanon, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, along with several senior commanders.
With the death of Hasan Nasrallah, Iran was forced to show more support for Hezbollah by increasing the supply of weapons, including Falaq-2 rockets and kamikaze drones, which allowed Hezbollah to attack targets in central Israel, such as Haifa and Tel Aviv.
Israel continued to attack Lebanon, which resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 Lebanese, including more than 2,000 Hezbollah fighters, while more than 13,000 people were injured.
Additionally, 1.2 million Lebanese were displaced, primarily those residing in southern Lebanon and Beirut.
In April 2024, Israel stepped up its attack on Iranian interests by bombing the Iranian embassy in Syria, which killed the commander of the Quds Force, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, forcing Iran to respond by launching missiles from Iranian territory into Israel.
However, whether intentionally or unintentionally, no Israeli was killed, and for more than a year after that, the situation between Iran and Israel calmed down.
However, on June 13, 2025, despite ongoing indirect negotiations between the US and Iran in Oman regarding its nuclear programme, Israel suddenly attacked Iran.
It killed several top Iranian military leaders and two nuclear scientists. It also attacked the Iranian nuclear facility complex in Natanz.
Israel's stated reason for its latest attack was to thwart Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, claiming that Iran now has enough material to build 15 nuclear bombs `in a matter of days' and was, therefore, a threat to Israel, a threat that needed to be eliminated immediately, a view that was not shared by many US leaders who felt that Iran would need many more years to develop a nuclear bomb.
Iran responded by attacking Israel with rockets and missiles.
The ensuing tit-for-tat actions over the following days have resulted in the deaths of more than 200 Iranians and more than 20 Israelis as of June 17, 2025. There is a strong possibility that the conflict will worsen due to the factors discussed below.
Domestic Political Factors in Israel
Many Israelis themselves believe that an essential factor why Benjamin Netanyahu decided to attack Iran was to ensure his well-being since he is currently facing corruption charges, which can lead to his being imprisoned.
However, by initiating a direct war with Iran, his trial will have to be postponed indefinitely.
Additionally, most Israelis also oppose his efforts to implement judicial reforms aimed at strengthening his political position.
His coalition government is currently very fragile and could collapse at anytime.
A few days before he ordered the attack on Iran, the Israeli parliament was almost dissolved.
The war with Iran will reduce the likelihood of the collapse of his government because it forces all Israelis to rally behind him to fight a common enemy.
Future Possible Scenario
The Iranian government has never been interested in directly attacking Israel because of the costs that the country will incur.
It also knows it cannot afford to continue the current war and is hoping Israel will stop its attacks. It has already stated that it is willing to stop its retaliatory attacks on Israel if Israel stops attacking it.
However, as stated above, Netanyahu is eager to continue the war in support of his agenda, even though he knows Israel cannot afford to continue the war.
Therefore, an integral part of Netanyahu's plan is to draw the US into the war, thereby reducing the burden of the war for Israel.
Moreover, Israel seems keen to affect a regime change in Iran by inflicting maximum damage on the country. They are hoping the Iranians who hate the Iranian government will seize the opportunity to take over the reins of power.
Currently, it is already using Iranian dissident groups within Iran which are opposed to the Iranian government to carry out bombing attacks on its behalf. The Iranian military has captured some of them.
Ordinary Iranians who hitherto had hated the Iranian government are now rallying behind it because of nationalistic sentiments.
Moreover, the deaths of hundreds of ordinary Iranians due to the Israeli bombings will serve to strengthen their support of the government. They will not help Israel to achieve its objective of `regime change'.
Implications for the Situation in Palestine
This conflict between Iran and Israel will not produce any sudden changes in Palestine. Israel continues to commit its crime of genocide in Gaza with impunity.
The world's attention that has been diverted to this conflict has made it easier for Israel to continue killing more Palestinians.
However, in the long run, this war will be detrimental to Israel because the perception among the American people towards Israel is increasingly negative.
Israel is seen as a country that is not only inhumane for killing women and children in Gaza, but it also likes to fight other countries.
Moreover, the recent statements by Netanyahu imploring the US to support Israeli in its current war with Iran are making more Americans, including those on the right wing of the political divide, be more vocal in warning Trump to remember his promise to his supporters that the US under him will not be involved in endless wars in far-flung places.
Notable figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Green have made it their mission to stop the US from supporting Israel with weapons and money.
Most Americans, especially those who are suffering from cost-of-living problems, are increasingly disgusted with the fact that their money is being used to fund Israel to kill more innocent women and children in Iran and Palestine.
Conclusion
Israel's attack on Iran is the culmination of a decades-long conflict between the two countries.
Several factors contribute to what is happening, namely, Israel's concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons, Netanyahu's personal and political agenda, the struggle for regional influence through proxies and the failure of international diplomacy. In the short run, both Iran and Israel will suffer huge losses from this war.
However, in the long run, Israel will suffer more due to the erosion of support from the American public.
Many Americans, including among the right-wingers, are disgusted with Netanyahu's instigation to get America to be involved in the war and continue to support its endless wars against neighbouring countries. Since the ability of the Israeli military depends entirely on support from the United States, any reduction in American support for Israel will mean that the chances of the Palestinians being free from the oppressive Zionist grip on them will become brighter.
From this perspective, despite the tragedy of the loss of so many innocent lives, the ongoing war between Iran and Israel is good for the future of Palestine.
Emeritus Professor Mohd Nazari Ismail is the director of Hashim Sani Centre for Palestine Studies at Business and Economics Faculty of Universiti Malaya. The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Sinar Daily.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Thai PM visits flood-hit region as 3,700 homes inundated
Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra (centre) visiting flood-damaged homes in Phaya Mengrai district in Chiang Rai province on Saturday, June 28. - PHOTO: AFP BANGKOK (AFP) - Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra made an emergency visit on Saturday to the country's flood-hit north, where the military is evacuating residents after monsoon rains inundated thousands of homes. The Royal Thai Army says more than 3,700 homes were flooded across five districts in Chiang Rai province, alongside 80 hectares (200 acres) of agricultural land, with roads made impassable in three areas. Heavy rains are forecast to continue in the coming days, while the military has deployed rafts to ferry residents from their homes engulfed by muddy brown water, according to images shared on their Facebook page. Paetongtarn made a one-day trip to inspect damage in the hardest-hit area of Phaya Mengrai district, 25 kilometres (15 miles) from the Laos border. "The prime minister met with flood-hit communities and asked about their well-being, including access to food, clean water, and care for vulnerable groups," the government said in a statement. Paetongtarn made the visit as she faces mounting pressure in the capital Bangkok, where protesters gathered on Saturday to call for her resignation over a leaked diplomatic phone call. It remains unclear how many people have been impacted by the flooding. However the military said more than 4,400 households had been affected. Thailand's disaster prevention agency said it is closely monitoring water levels and urged communities to move belongings to higher ground in case of flash flooding. While Thailand experiences annual monsoon rains in the third quarter of the year, man-made climate change is causing more intense weather patterns that make destructive floods more likely. Widespread flooding across Thailand in 2011 killed more than 500 people and damaged millions of homes. - AFP
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Iran's Khamenei resurfaces to claim ‘victory' over Israel, but doubts grow over his authority and role in war decisions
PARIS, June 28 — Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has re-emerged after the war with Israel but faces a struggle to maintain the authority he has wielded over the Islamic republic in over three-and-a-half decades of rule, analysts say. After days of silence, Khamenei appeared on Thursday in a video address to proclaim 'victory' and prove he is still alive following the 12-day conflict with Israel which ended with a truce earlier this week. But Khamenei, appointed Iran's number one and spiritual leader for life in 1989, spoke softly and hoarsely in the address, without the charismatic oratory for which he is known. Whereas his regular interventions before the war usually took place in public in front of an audience, this message was filmed against a plain backdrop of curtains and a picture of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This may indicate he could still be in hiding after Israel refused to rule out seeking to assassinate him. On Thursday, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz told media that the military would have killed Khamenei during the war if the opportunity had presented itself. 'If he had been in our sights, we would have taken him out,' Katz told Israel's public radio station Kan, adding that the military had 'searched a lot'. But in the end, the conflict did not trigger the removal of the system that has ruled Iran since the 1979 revolution. Still, it enabled Israel to demonstrate military superiority and deep intelligence penetration of Iran by killing key members of Khamenei's inner circle in targeted strikes. The war was also the latest in a series of setbacks over the last year for Khamenei. These include the downgrading of pro-Tehran militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah in conflicts with Israel and the fall of Iran's ally in Syria Bashar al-Assad, against the background of economic crisis and energy shortages at home. 'At this time, the regime does not seem to be on the verge of falling but it is certainly more vulnerable than it has been since the early years after the revolution,' said Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa. 'Diminished figure' 'The authority of the supreme leader has therefore certainly been undermined,' Juneau told AFP. 'Even though his position remains secure, in that there is unlikely to be a direct challenge to his rule for now, he has lost credibility and bears direct responsibility for the Islamic republic's major losses.' Khamenei is 86 and suffers the effects of a 1981 assassination attempt in Tehran which paralysed his right arm, a disability he has never made any attempt to hide. But discussion of succession has remained taboo in Iran, even if Western analysts have long eyed his son Mojtaba as a possible – but far from inevitable – contender. Arash Azizi, visiting fellow at Boston University, said Khamenei looked 'frail and weak' in his televised message in 'a far cry from the grand orator we know'. 'It's clear that he is a diminished figure, no longer authoritative and a shadow of his former self,' he said. 'Power in Tehran is already passing to different institutions and factions and the battle for his succession will only intensify in the coming period.' Khamenei has come through crises before, using the state's levers of repression, most recently during the 2022-2023 protests sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, an Iranian Kurd detained for allegedly breaching Iran's strict dress code for women. Rights activists say hundreds of people have been arrested in a new crackdown in the wake of the conflict. 'Sidelined' The New York Times and Iran International, a Persian-language television channel based outside Iran that is critical of the authorities, have said Khamenei spent the war in a bunker avoiding use of digital communication for fear of being tracked and assassinated. Iran International reported that Khamenei was not even involved in the discussions that led to the truce which were handled by the national security council and President Masoud Pezeshkian. There has been no confirmation of this claim. Jason Brodsky, policy director at the US-based United Against Nuclear Iran, said Khamenei appeared 'frail and hoarse' and also 'detached from reality' in insisting that Iran's nuclear programme did not suffer significant damage. 'Nevertheless, I remain sceptical of the theories that Khamenei has been sidelined,' he told AFP. 'I have no doubt the war will prompt a debate within the Islamic Republic's political elite as to how best to rebuild the system's capabilities, but in the end, the buck has always stopped with Khamenei,' he said. — AFP
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar get along? Yes — If the world rediscovers strategic civility — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 28 — In a world marked by sanctions, suspicion, and soundbites, the idea that Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Anwar Ibrahim could ever get along may seem far-fetched. But it is not impossible. The world has long misunderstood the difference between ideological differences and strategic necessity. In an era of multipolar competition and post-normal crises, the ability to disagree without destabilizing the global order is no longer a luxury—it is a prerequisite. The answer to whether these four leaders can find common ground is 'yes'—but only if the world learns to value strategic civility over ideological conformity. And only if we recognize the role of strategic convenor powers—like Malaysia under Anwar Ibrahim—in brokering spaces where dialogue, not dogma, prevails. Four leaders, four civilizational trajectories Xi Jinping leads a China determined to reclaim its historical stature through the revival of Confucian governance principles, Party supremacy, and economic statecraft. China's global posture is one of confidence—sometimes defiant, but often methodical. Donald Trump, back in office, rules through disruption. His foreign policy may seem erratic, but there is a pattern: transactionalism, spectacle, and a preference for leverage over long-term entanglements. While he loathes multilateralism, he is not instinctively drawn to war either. He wants deals—big, visible, and beneficial to domestic constituencies. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. Despite decades of sanctions and confrontation, Tehran has always kept a channel open for diplomacy—when treated with dignity. And Anwar Ibrahim—a Muslim democrat, intellectual, and reformer—brings moral clarity without moral posturing. He is not just the Prime Minister of Malaysia; he is Asean's most articulate proponent of civilizational dialogue, advocating for coexistence between Islam, the West, and the Confucian East. His track record shows a consistent commitment to rule-based order, justice, and multilateralism anchored in ethics. When strategic interests overlap, so can leaders What connects these four leaders is not their personal affinity but their converging interests. All four, for different reasons, now operate in a world where overreach brings blowback, and where the line between strategic deterrence and economic disaster grows thinner by the day. Trump wants trade wins and less global policing. He remains open to deals that avoid new wars, especially if they burnish his legacy and strengthen U.S. industry. Xi seeks global stability to ensure China's continued rise. Tensions with the U.S. must be managed, not escalated. A rare earth agreement with Washington was recently signed—proof that economic logic can prevail over decoupling rhetoric. Khamenei, behind the veil of defiance, sees value in a stable regional order. Iran's pivot eastward, especially toward China and Asean, reflects a desire to diversify diplomacy and find breathing room from Western isolation. Anwar, more than any other, recognizes that leadership today means navigating contradictions, not escaping them. Under his stewardship, Malaysia is stepping up as a strategic convenor power—offering a rare neutral space for diplomacy between conflicting blocs. The post-normal world needs convenors, not commanders In this post-normal world—characterized by chaos, contradiction, and complexity—what is urgently missing is not hard power, but bridging power. Countries that can bring opposing sides together without being seen as biased are crucial. This is where Malaysia's role as a strategic convenor power becomes indispensable. Malaysia does not lecture. It listens. It does not impose. It hosts. Its voice resonates across the Islamic world, the Global South, and East Asia—not because it is large, but because it is trusted. The Asean Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, and now growing Asean-GCC-China trilateral dialogues all reflect Malaysia's convening capacity. Anwar's proposal to address global problems through neutral ASEAN mediation, or to build a global moral coalition against Islamophobia and Sinophobia, are not fringe ideas—they are blueprints for how strategic convenors should behave in the 21st century. Lessons from Asean's quiet success The Asean model, for all its imperfections, thrives on strategic civility—a concept the West often mistakes for weakness. ASEAN has shown how ten countries with vastly different systems can pursue consensus, non-interference, and cooperative security without military blocs or coercion. This 'Asean way,' when applied globally, indeed, turned into Asean Will, could moderate the extremes of U.S. unilateralism, Chinese assertiveness, and Iranian resistance. But for that to happen, countries like Malaysia must be given the diplomatic space to facilitate, not just participate. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. — AFP pic Toward a new diplomatic quadrilateral Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar sit at the same table—perhaps not literally, but diplomatically? If the terms are mutual respect, economic stability, and non-imposition of political systems, the answer is yes. China wants a stable periphery and global markets. The U.S. wants reduced costs and visible wins. Iran wants security guarantees and economic inclusion. Asean—led by Malaysia—wants a world where small states are not trampled by the rivalry of giants. It is not only possible, but necessary, for this emerging diplomatic quadrilateral to form. Conclusion: Replacing clash with convening The time of zero-sum diplomacy is over. No single power—American, Chinese, or Islamic—can impose its version of order without backlash. What the world needs are strategic convenor powers that can host the moral imagination of all civilizations, offering an architecture of dialogue when architecture of dominance is crumbling. Anwar, by not siding with any ideological camp, but standing for values rooted in justice and dignity, is uniquely placed to midwife this new order. Yes, Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar can get along—if the rest of us choose convening over coercion, civility over confrontation, and realism rooted in respect. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
