A former Israeli Air Force commander says Israel faces a stark choice on Iran: launch a full-scale war including a ground invasion, or pursue economic pressure and renewed negotiations.
Maj. Gen. (res.) Eitan Ben Eliyahu told Israeli radio station 103FM on Thursday that Israel’s June 2025 Operation Rising Lion delayed Iran’s nuclear program for years but did not eliminate it, leaving Israel with only two realistic paths forward.
The Strategic Assessment
“Maybe the weakness in our strike is that we did not eliminate the nuclear program, but we did delay it for many years,” Ben Eliyahu said, referring to Operation Rising Lion.
However, he warned that Iran is studying the conflict and adapting. The Islamic Republic has learned key lessons from Israel’s strikes, including increasing the number and accuracy of missiles, repositioning launch arrays farther east and south, deepening dispersion of assets, and improving its capacity for surprise attacks.
“Either you decide on total war with Iran, including a ground invasion and a long period of home-front strain and multi-front escalation, or you choose economic pressure alongside attempts to return to negotiations,” Ben Eliyahu said.
Despite Iran falling further behind technologically after Israel’s campaign, Ben Eliyahu stressed that Tehran is already working to correct its vulnerabilities.
Operation Rising Lion Background
Israel’s June 2025 campaign included repeated strikes on nuclear facilities around Isfahan and broader damage to nuclear and missile-production infrastructure, according to the IDF and international monitors.
The operation represented Israel’s most comprehensive direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program, involving strikes on key enrichment and research facilities that had been central to Iran’s nuclear development.
The Lebanon Calculation
Turning to Lebanon, Ben Eliyahu said the situation is more sensitive but argued that the United States will not abandon its signed agreement and that Israel is operating within those terms.
“As long as Hezbollah does not disarm and evacuate the southern part of Lebanon, we are justified in acting as part of the agreement,” he said.
However, he warned against overreach: “If we operate more broadly, we will collapse the agreement with our own hands.”
Addressing recent Israeli strikes on Hezbollah’s military chief of staff, Ben Eliyahu said the action served multiple purposes—deterrence, threat, punishment, and pressure on the Lebanese government to curb Hezbollah’s force buildup.
“The central issue is Iran,” he emphasized, suggesting that actions in Lebanon are ultimately part of the broader confrontation with Tehran.
The Binary Choice
Ben Eliyahu’s assessment presents Israeli policymakers with a difficult decision. A full-scale war with Iran would require sustained commitment, significant casualties, extended strain on Israeli civilians, and the risk of multi-front escalation involving Iranian proxies across the region.
The alternative—economic pressure and negotiations—would require coordination with international partners, particularly the United States, and acceptance that Iran’s nuclear program would continue to exist under some form of constraint rather than being physically destroyed.
Neither option is without substantial risk, but Ben Eliyahu argues these are the only two realistic paths available to Israel following Operation Rising Lion.
