Israel Launches "Lion’s Might" Operation Against Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure
Embedded Files
In the early hours of Friday, June 13, the Israeli military launched a major offensive operation named “Lion’s Might” targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military facilities. The Israeli Air Force spearheaded the attack, which Tel Aviv claims was a response to what it described as an “imminent threat” from Iran’s nuclear program.
According to Israeli officials, Iran had reportedly stockpiled enough enriched uranium to build multiple nuclear weapons within days. The operation was intended to neutralize this perceived danger.
Interestingly, this escalation came exactly 60 days after former U.S. President Donald Trump had issued a two-month ultimatum to Iran. Although Washington officially denied any involvement in the assault, the statement has been widely viewed as disingenuous. Trump has consistently insisted that Iran must surrender unconditionally, asserting that diplomacy alone cannot end Iran’s nuclear ambitions—only submission through force could.
The effectiveness of the Israeli attack was attributed to years of covert operations conducted by Mossad inside Iran. These included intelligence gathering, sabotage, and logistical preparations that made a full-scale strike feasible.
During the assault, Israel deployed commandos, precision weapons, and explosive drones across Iranian territory. Key nuclear scientists and security officials were reportedly targeted and eliminated. Mossad operatives had spent months smuggling drone components into Iran, concealed in luggage and cargo trucks, with the aim of disabling Iranian air defenses from within.
As the operation commenced, Israeli teams used drones to destroy radar installations and paralyze air defense systems, paving the way for F-35 fighter jets to strike deep inside Tehran. Sabotage units specifically targeted missile transport trucks, rather than just the launchers, disrupting Iran’s ability to coordinate a rapid counterattack.
Israeli-trained drone unit leaders, stationed in third countries, infiltrated Iran to coordinate with local operatives who had hidden weapons and drone parts. These cells acted autonomously until the final order to strike was issued.
Civilian transport networks and unwitting commercial partners were exploited to move drone components into Iran. Once inside, Mossad agents assembled the drones near pre-selected targets. Israeli teams had meticulously mapped logistics months in advance and timed the drone attacks to coincide with peak Iranian military readiness, sowing confusion at command centers.
This disruption in coordination occurred just as Israeli F-35 jets entered Iranian airspace, striking command hubs and missile sites across Tehran. The operation was also aimed at instilling fear among Iran’s leadership, making senior officials feel perpetually vulnerable.
Evidence suggests that many of the attacks were launched from neighboring Azerbaijan, although President Ilham Aliyev has publicly denied such claims. Iran has since warned Azerbaijan that any future Israeli attack originating from its soil would prompt Iran to retaliate directly against Azerbaijan itself.
The Israeli Air Force swiftly achieved full air superiority over Tehran in the early days of the conflict. In a series of aggressive and highly coordinated strikes, Israeli forces reportedly destroyed one-third of Iran's ballistic missile launchers—over 120 platforms in total—significantly impairing Iran’s retaliatory capabilities.
The initial wave of attacks devastated nearly all of Iran’s air defense systems from the western border to Tehran. Follow-up strikes targeted uranium enrichment facilities, military infrastructure, and key oil refineries. Among the most consequential disruptions was the temporary halt in production of 12 million cubic meters of gas at the South Pars gas field, a critical component of Iran’s energy sector.
One of the strategic focuses of the Israeli assault was the dismantling of western air defenses, which appears to have served a dual purpose: not only to clear the skies for Israeli aircraft, but also to pave the way for the potential incursion of separatist militia groups into Iranian territory—acting as ground-based mercenaries.
To consolidate its air dominance, the Israeli military struck six airports across western, eastern, and central Iran. These attacks damaged runways, underground hangars, aerial refueling tankers, and various aircraft including F-14s, F-5s, and AH-1 helicopters—crippling Iran’s ability to launch or support air operations.
The Natanz nuclear facility, long regarded as the heart of Iran’s enrichment program, was also targeted using precision intelligence provided by Israeli intelligence branches. In Isfahan, four key structures were struck, including the Fuel Conversion Facility and a production plant for nuclear fuel plates.
Perhaps the most audacious component of the campaign was Israel’s deep-strike capability: fighter jets reportedly reached as far as Mashhad in northeastern Iran—approximately 2,300 kilometers from Israeli territory. This marked not only the deepest strike ever conducted by the Israeli Air Force, but also sent a potent geopolitical message to neighboring Pakistan, given the proximity of Mashhad to the Iran–Pakistan border.
Iran Strikes Back: Israeli Bases Targeted Amid Strict Military Censorship
During the 12-day war, Iranian missile strikes directly hit five military installations within Israel—though these events were never publicly acknowledged due to Israel’s strict military censorship. According to sources, six Iranian missiles struck strategic targets across northern, central, and southern Israel. These included an airbase of strategic importance, an intelligence-gathering center, and a key logistical facility.
These strikes came in addition to 36 previously confirmed attacks that had bypassed Israeli air defenses and caused significant damage to both residential and industrial infrastructure. However, Israeli officials have remained silent, and due to severe military reporting restrictions, domestic media are barred from covering the full extent of these incidents.
One critical question emerged: how did Iranian missiles manage to breach Israel’s sophisticated multi-layered air defense system?
While the majority of incoming Iranian projectiles were intercepted, the percentage of successful breaches increased steadily during the first eight days of the conflict. The reasons remain speculative but could include several contributing factors: limited supplies of interceptor missiles in Israel, evolving Iranian firing strategies, and the possible deployment of more advanced Iranian missile technologies.
Moreover, a significant objective behind Iran’s use of suicide drones appeared to be overwhelming Israel’s air defense systems. Although many of these drones were intercepted before reaching their targets, their sheer volume served to distract and confuse Israeli defensive operations, putting constant strain on detection and response networks.
Israel’s widely known Iron Dome system, though effective, is primarily designed to counter short-range projectiles such as mortar shells. It represents just one layer of the country’s defense structure. In the middle tier lies the David’s Sling system, which intercepts drones and medium-range missiles up to 300 kilometers. The uppermost layer is formed by the Arrow system, designed to target long-range ballistic missiles before atmospheric re-entry.
During the 12-day war, these Israeli defense layers were reinforced by the U.S. military. American THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) systems and sea-based interceptors in the Red Sea provided supplementary protection. Reports suggest that at least 36 THAAD interceptors were launched during the conflict, each costing around $12 million.
Despite this extensive defense network, by the seventh day of the war, approximately 16% of incoming missiles were still managing to get through. This figure aligns with the Israeli military’s pre-war assessment, which estimated a maximum interception success rate of around 87%.
During the 12-day war with Iran, the United States reportedly expended approximately 14% of its THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile inventory. Military analysts warn that replenishing this stockpile could take anywhere from 3 to 8 years, highlighting a growing concern about the sustainability of missile defense capabilities in the event of future conflicts.
THAAD interceptors played a critical role in shielding Israel from Iranian ballistic missiles, accounting for nearly half of the successful interceptions during the bombardment. In total, the combined efforts of U.S. THAAD systems and Israel’s Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 interceptors successfully neutralized 201 out of 574 incoming Iranian missiles.
This rapid depletion of advanced missile defense assets, while underscoring Washington’s firm commitment to protecting its allies, has raised urgent questions regarding the readiness and replenishment timelines of key U.S. military systems. The situation also exposes vulnerabilities should a new front emerge before stockpiles are restored.
In parallel, the U.S. also launched approximately 30 Patriot missiles to defend the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, another key strategic installation in the region. Although Patriots are less costly and faster to manufacture compared to THAAD missiles, they do not offer the same level of protection against high-altitude ballistic threats.
In a notable display of NATO support, German Luftwaffe and British Royal Air Force refueling tankers were spotted conducting covert mid-air refueling operations over Jordanian radar zones. These efforts provided indirect logistical support to Israel's air defense network, further highlighting the multinational dimension of the conflict.
U.S. Direct Military Involvement: B-2 Bombers Strike Iran’s Nuclear Sites
Perhaps the most significant escalation in the conflict was the direct military intervention by the United States against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. In a coordinated strike, U.S. forces launched a full-scale bombing campaign on three of Iran’s main nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation marked one of the largest tactical air raids in history involving B-2 stealth bombers.
A full payload of bombs was dropped on the Fordow facility, one of Iran’s most fortified and deeply buried nuclear enrichment sites. The mission, which utilized 14 GBU-57 "Massive Ordnance Penetrator" bombs—each weighing approximately 30,000 pounds (13,600 kilograms)—was second only in duration to the B-2 operations following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
According to the Pentagon, over 125 U.S. military aircraft participated in the operation. The strike was deemed a tactical success by American military leadership. General Dan Keane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that “Iranian forces did not fire a single shot at American aircraft—they were completely caught off guard.”
However, the extent of the actual damage remains unclear. It is yet to be confirmed whether the GBU-57 bombs were able to penetrate deep enough to compromise the Fordow facility, which is constructed inside a mountain. Early intelligence assessments shared with European governments suggest that Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium remained largely intact following the U.S. strikes.
Reports indicate that the 408-kilogram cache of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium was not stored at the Fordow site during the bombing. Instead, it had been dispersed across multiple undisclosed locations—undermining former U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertion that the operation had “completely destroyed” Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
A Pattern of Intervention: U.S. Military Engagements in the Islamic World
Over the past 15 years, the United States—under both Democratic and Republican administrations—has conducted direct military operations in at least eight Muslim-majority countries. These include Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and most recently, Iran. Each intervention has been justified under different pretexts, ranging from counterterrorism and non-proliferation to regional stability and defense of allies.
During the Trump administration, the U.S. gave Israel a tacit green light to initiate military action against Iran. However, American officials clarified that the U.S. would only become directly involved if the operation showed signs of success. This cautious conditionality underscores a broader shift in U.S. military strategy—favoring proxy engagement and allied leadership over full-scale American intervention.
Despite recent attacks on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, intelligence estimates suggest that the Iranian government would still require at least one to two years to develop a usable nuclear weapon—provided it can conceal its activities from international oversight. This timeline offers a narrow window for diplomacy, deterrence, or further escalation, depending on the choices made by regional and global powers in the months ahead.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse