By Robert Czulda, Assistant Professor at the University of Lodz (Poland)
The large-scale Israeli airstrike carried out in multiple waves during the night of June 12-13, 2025, targeting numerous sites across Iran, marks a new and dangerous chapter in the long-standing conflict between these sworn enemies — one that appears to be drifting perilously close to open war.
Israel has struck Iranian targets before. In April 2024, for instance, it targeted a military base and airfield in Isfahan. Then, in October of the same year, Israel launched retaliatory strikes against Iranian military infrastructure, including drone factories, ballistic missile facilities, and air defence systems.
This latest operation, however, is unprecedented in both scale and the nature of its targets. Iran suffered not only heavy human losses but also significant reputational damage. The strikes hit Tehran, Natanz, and Parchin, reportedly killing several top military commanders, including General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s Chief of the General Staff; General Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and General Gholam Ali Rashid, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of Armed Forces. These were among the most senior figures in Iran’s military hierarchy.
It is always risky to draw sweeping conclusions at an early stage in a crisis. This applies especially to issues such as the potential long-term impact on Iran’s nuclear program and its military policy. Several Iranian nuclear scientists were reportedly killed, and there was damage to Iran’s key uranium enrichment facility in Natanz. Still, it would be a mistake to claim that the Iranian nuclear program has been destroyed. That is certainly not the case. Although the attack may cause a temporary slowdown, it could also, paradoxically, strengthen the long-term temptation among decision-makers in Tehran to pursue nuclear weapons. Given the current geostrategic environment, such a move might even be viewed as a rational decision by Iranian leaders. Nonetheless, it is too early for a final assessment on this matter.
For now, however, a few preliminary conclusions can be drawn. First, from a purely military standpoint, Israel has demonstrated overwhelming operational superiority and professionalism in executing a complex, large-scale strike. It has also sent a clear message to both state and non-state actors that might consider threatening it. The operation involved over 200 aircraft striking multiple targets in a highly coordinated manner, without any reported losses on the Israeli side.
Second, the effectiveness of Israel’s strike highlights the decisive importance of air superiority and intelligence in general in modern warfare, as well as the operational value of platforms like the F-35. These aircraft were almost certainly involved not only as strike assets but also as intelligence, surveillance, and communications platforms. Any country that fields the F-35 or a similarly advanced aircraft and integrates it into a well-developed operational ecosystem will enjoy a significant advantage over potential adversaries. These are lessons that go far beyond Iran and the Middle East. They are relevant to any potential military confrontation, including hypothetical scenarios such as a NATO-Russia war or a Chinese assault on Taiwan. In both cases, air superiority, including reconnaissance and long-range strike capabilities, will be decisive. And in both areas, Israel currently holds a clear edge.
Air superiority in both reconnaissance and long-range precision strike gives one side a substantial advantage over the other. Israel has built a highly effective intelligence apparatus that enables it to detect, track, and eliminate targets with precision. At the same time, the most recent attack, like previous ones, has exposed the profound weakness of Iran’s so-called A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) capabilities, which prevent enemy access and freedom of operation within a given area, whether on land, at sea, or in the air.
Israel, by contrast, excels in SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) and DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) operations, thanks largely to its modern air force, including above-mentioned F-35s, which have been procured by 20 states so far (Israel is the only customer in the Middle East, while the UAE were not permitted to get them). While SEAD aims to temporarily neutralise or disrupt enemy air defences (e.g., radars, surface-to-air missile systems, and command posts), DEAD goes a step further by physically destroying those assets.
With each subsequent strike on Iran, Israel’s dominance in these areas will only grow, further increasing Iran’s vulnerability to future air attacks. Iran simply lacks the means to break Israel’s aerial dominance. This means Israel can continue to strike Iranian targets with minimal risk, especially since many of its aircraft do not need to enter Iranian airspace. Instead, they can hit targets from a safe distance.
Third, Iran has once again demonstrated its inability to protect its strategic assets, not only in terms of its weak and ineffective air defences but also its counterintelligence failures. For example, in late July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was assassinated in Tehran during the inauguration ceremony of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. This high-profile event should have been heavily guarded by Iran’s security services. Haniyeh’s death in such a setting was a catastrophic blow to Iran’s image.
The latest Israeli strike further illustrates the deep shortcomings of Iran’s intelligence and security apparatus, which remains incapable of countering Israeli infiltration. The fact that leading Iranian nuclear scientists and top military commanders were killed in their homes or command centres, despite public warnings of an imminent Israeli attack, is astonishing. Iran appears to have learned nothing. If it cannot protect its most vital assets, how can it hope to safeguard less important ones? This is a question many Iranian soldiers and officers must already be asking themselves, fully aware that in the event of open war, their fate may be sealed.
