The Rise of Preemptive Fragility: Strategic Reordering after Operation Rising Lion

Dr. Naim Asas

⸻

Abstract

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion—a large-scale and precisely coordinated military campaign targeting Iranian nuclear and strategic infrastructure. This unprecedented operation involved over 200 aircraft, high-intensity cyberattacks, electromagnetic interference, and covert intelligence operations that penetrated deeply into Iran’s most secure command structures. Officially justified as a preemptive action to delay nuclear escalation, the operation reflects a broader strategic reordering in the region—one defined not only by military dominance, but also by the collapse of internal sovereignty and the erosion of normative restraint.

Crucially, the effectiveness of Israel’s strikes appears to have relied on significant intelligence cooperation from within Iran, highlighting the regime’s loss of territorial and institutional control. This internal fissure is symptomatic of a deeper malaise: the Islamic Republic, increasingly detached from its society, now governs against the will of a population that rejects clerical authoritarianism. From Tehran to Tabriz, Iranians—especially the youth—see the regime not as a protector, but as an obstacle to freedom, prosperity, and dignity. The unprecedented scale and surgical precision of Rising Lion thus symbolize more than a shift in deterrence—they reveal a collapsing state architecture that is unable to shield itself from within.

This article introduces five conceptual tools—Strategic Disruption Loop, Shadow Acceleration Doctrine, Deterrence Decay Spiral, Geostrategic Overload, and Post-Westphalian Preemption—to better understand this moment of transformation. By combining structural analysis with original concepts, the article argues that this operation reveals a form of “preemptive fragility”: a new paradigm where weakness, ambiguity, and anticipatory logic govern the use of force. Importantly, a regime change in Iran—far from being merely an internal affair—could dramatically alter regional trajectories, from the Levant to Central Asia, and offer a new horizon of hope for countries like Afghanistan, long suffocated by Tehran’s strategic manipulation and ideological exports.

1. Introduction: An Event Beyond Deterrence

In the predawn hours of June 13, 2025, Israeli F-35s and F-15Is launched a coordinated assault on more than 100 military and dual-use targets deep within Iranian territory. Enrichment facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, advanced missile laboratories near Semnan, air defense nodes in Yazd, and even underground command bunkers in Tehran were struck simultaneously. For the first time, the world witnessed a strike that was not only multi-domain in scope—air, cyber, electronic—but one deeply informed by human intelligence originating from inside the Iranian apparatus itself. That such critical infrastructure was reached without interception raises alarming questions about internal sabotage, elite fragmentation, and the regime’s diminishing hold on key sectors of its own military-intelligence complex.

The official Israeli narrative framed Rising Lion as a preemptive move to prevent nuclear weaponization. Yet the operation cannot be understood solely within the military register. This was not just a campaign of delay, but one of strategic signaling and ontological dislocation. Its true aim appears to have been to redefine the very grammar of security in the Middle East, setting new precedents in terms of timing, legitimacy, and the acceptable thresholds for the use of force.

This article argues that Operation Rising Lion marks the rise of preemptive fragility: a framework where deterrence is no longer grounded in mutual restraint but replaced by recursive, disruptive logic in response to fluid risk. In such a world, fragility is not merely a symptom of weak states—it is a governing condition for all actors in a system marked by rapid shifts, internal discontent, and blurred sovereignty.

To capture this shift, we introduce five interrelated concepts that reflect the emerging patterns of state behavior and conflict logic in a fragmented world order. The first two—Strategic Disruption Loop and Shadow Acceleration Doctrine—will be unpacked in this session. The others will follow in subsequent sessions.

2. Strategic Disruption Loop: From Preemption to Systemic Volatility

The Strategic Disruption Loop describes a feedback mechanism in which preemptive action generates further instability, rather than neutralizing threats. Unlike classic deterrence theory, where military action is designed to discourage aggression by imposing costs, disruption logic seeks to confuse, fragment, and overwhelm an adversary’s capacity to respond coherently.

Operation Rising Lion exemplifies this new paradigm. Rather than waiting for Iran to cross a clear nuclear red line, Israel acted on anticipatory intelligence and systemic suspicion. But by doing so, it introduced recursive volatility into the region. Action breeds reaction—not in conventional or symmetric ways, but in delayed, distributed, and hybrid forms.

This shift marks a temporal dislocation in conflict strategy. Traditional deterrence is anchored in freezing behavior—stabilizing expectations and preventing surprises. Disruption, by contrast, seeks to perpetually reframe the timeline, forcing adversaries into a state of constant recalibration. The battlefield is no longer spatial—it is psychological, cognitive, and political.

Israel’s tactical success was facilitated not only by superior hardware and software, but by deep fractures inside Iran’s regime—disaffected insiders, divided elites, and local populations unwilling to defend the clerical state. As several leaked intelligence reports indicate, some of the logistical and cyber vulnerabilities exploited in the operation were made possible by internal whistleblowers or defectors. This internal sabotage cycle now becomes part of the loop itself: the more a regime is contested from within, the more susceptible it becomes to external disruption.

Thus, the Strategic Disruption Loop operates both externally and internally. It blurs the boundary between domestic dissent and international confrontation. And it raises a deeper question: can a regime that is no longer able to inspire loyalty or retain strategic coherence still be considered sovereign?

3. Shadow Acceleration Doctrine: Strategic Adaptation in the Face of Pressure

In the aftermath of the strikes, the Iranian government’s visible response was surprisingly restrained. There were no immediate retaliatory missile barrages, no attacks on Israeli embassies, and no direct escalation in the Persian Gulf. However, beneath the surface, Iran entered a new phase of reactive acceleration. This evolution reflects what we define as the Shadow Acceleration Doctrine: a strategy in which a targeted state, unable to respond symmetrically, intensifies its capabilities in decentralized, covert, and ambiguous ways.

Iran’s leadership rapidly redeployed strategic assets to underground facilities, withdrew from nuclear negotiation tracks, and intensified cooperation with surrogate actors across the region. Meanwhile, domestic voices inside Iran—particularly among reformists and young professionals—expressed a paradoxical sense of relief that external force might finally catalyze internal change, rather than galvanize nationalist consolidation. This societal reaction—far from unifying—is fractured, weary, and disillusioned with decades of isolation, sanctions, and ideological imposition.

The regime’s survival instinct now depends on two intertwined tracks: increased opacity and fragmented resilience. Yet such adaptations only deepen its disconnection from its society and from the international system. The more it hides, the less it governs. The more it accelerates in the shadows, the more it concedes control in the daylight.

This doctrine has implications far beyond Iran. It is likely to inspire other authoritarian regimes under pressure to mimic this evasive logic, prioritizing concealment over confrontation. For regional states like Afghanistan, this signals both opportunity and danger: opportunity for autonomy from Tehran’s ideological hegemony—but danger if Iran’s decline creates power vacuums filled by radicalized actors or rogue networks.

4. Conceptual Transition: From Stability to Strategic Fluidity

The first two concepts—Strategic Disruption Loop and Shadow Acceleration Doctrine—reflect a broader transformation in the architecture of global conflict. The traditional frameworks of deterrence and sovereign stability are increasingly replaced by a fluid grammar of anticipatory moves, asymmetric disruptions, and internal fractures. This transition does not merely affect how states act, but redefines what constitutes strategic rationality.

Operation Rising Lion demonstrated how a state’s internal vulnerabilities—disloyal actors, weak institutions, and public alienation—can become external opportunities for adversaries. Iran’s inability to secure its airspace or preempt the infiltration of its deepest infrastructures was not due to technical inferiority alone. It was the result of systemic disaffection, revealing that the Islamic Republic now rules over a society it can no longer represent, inspire, or fully control.

This opens the door to a conceptual shift in how we understand regional order: one no longer predicated on balance or deterrence, but on permanent recalibration, mistrust, and structural ambiguity. In such a world, even short-term tactical victories can have long-term destabilizing consequences if they are not embedded within strategic foresight and regional resilience frameworks.

5. Deterrence Decay Spiral: Erosion of Predictability in Strategic Interaction

The Deterrence Decay Spiral captures a disturbing evolution in the logic of conflict. Traditional deterrence was based on stable mutual awareness of red lines, presumed rationality, and enforceable restraint. However, in the aftermath of Rising Lion, deterrence appears less like a psychological equilibrium and more like a sliding scale of anticipatory action.

The Israeli strikes were not triggered by any verified nuclear breakout. Instead, they were justified by the mere suspicion of future capability, supported by fragmentary intelligence and the presumed collapse of transparency mechanisms. This shift—where potential replaces proof—transforms deterrence into a volatile, subjective terrain.

Iran’s expected counter-response was diluted by its asymmetry. Lacking the capacity to strike Israel directly without facing overwhelming retaliation, Tehran resorted to strategic ambiguity: consolidating its proxies, repositioning forces, and deepening regional entanglements. But these measures are neither sustainable nor stabilizing. Instead, they expose a regime cornered by fear, outpaced by technology, and alienated from its own people.

The decay of deterrence also reflects a loss of credibility in legal and institutional norms. The United Nations, the IAEA, and traditional diplomatic frameworks have been sidelined or rendered obsolete by the speed and intensity of anticipatory action. If the threshold for military intervention becomes a moving target, then the entire system of strategic signaling collapses into noise.

This is not merely a military issue—it is an epistemological one. As the lines between offense and defense blur, so too do the moral and legal standards of action. In this climate, states that hesitate are punished, while those that preempt are normalized. The lesson from Rising Lion is clear: fragility is no longer a deterrent to war, but its very condition.

6. Geostrategic Overload: When Local Actions Disrupt Global Systems

The ripple effects of Operation Rising Lion extended far beyond the Iranian plateau. Within hours, oil prices surged by over 10%, shipping lanes were rerouted, insurance markets destabilized, and Gulf stock exchanges registered historic volatility. What we are witnessing is a form of Geostrategic Overload—where localized operations produce disproportionate global consequences.

In the modern security environment, no conflict is purely regional. The targeting of Iran’s infrastructure—particularly its oil terminals and cyber nodes—sent shockwaves through supply chains, aviation routes, and diplomatic alignments. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a third of global seaborne oil passes, saw a surge in naval presence and security drills. Even markets in Asia, particularly India and China, reacted with urgency, exposing their structural dependency on Middle Eastern stability.

But the overload is not only economic. It is also political and perceptual. Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar find themselves under renewed pressure to pick sides, redefine alliances, or harden their own internal control mechanisms. Turkey, meanwhile, viewed the Israeli operation with ambivalence—concerned about precedent, but also tempted by the new margins of action it may legitimize.

More fundamentally, the Iranian regime’s inability to protect its own strategic sites reinforces a wider narrative: that authoritarian states in the region are neither invincible nor immutable. The image of Israel penetrating the heart of the Islamic Republic—with apparent assistance from internal dissidents—offers a symbolic turning point. For neighboring societies, especially those in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Syria, this rupture signals the possibility of change—not just in governments, but in the very rules that define political order.

Afghanistan, in particular, stands to benefit from a weakened or transformed Iranian regime. For decades, Tehran has interfered in Afghan politics—arming militias, sponsoring sectarian divisions, and imposing a political-theological model deeply incompatible with the country’s pluralistic aspirations. A change in Iran could open space for new regional alignments, greater autonomy for Afghan civil actors, and an end to the theocratic encirclement of Central Asia.

7. Post-Westphalian Preemption: Redefining the Use of Force

Operation Rising Lion did not only strike Iranian infrastructure—it also shattered the illusion of untouchable sovereignty. According to the Westphalian and UN Charter frameworks, the use of force is legitimate only in cases of clear self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Israel’s operation, however, was based on unilateral interpretation of risk, not on an act of aggression. No red line was crossed—because none had to be.

This sets a precedent best described as Post-Westphalian Preemption: the growing normalization of anticipatory strikes without multilateral approval, framed by flexible justifications rooted in perceived threats rather than actual violations. In this logic, sovereignty becomes conditional—tolerated only if the sovereign is seen as responsible, transparent, and stable. Once a regime is viewed as opaque, fragile, or hostile, the international tolerance for violating its borders increases dramatically.

Importantly, internal dissent becomes a factor in assessing legitimacy. The presence of domestic collaborators in the Israeli operation strongly suggests that portions of the Iranian security apparatus no longer recognize the authority or survival of the regime as sacrosanct. If a state cannot guarantee coherence within its own elite and military structures, how valid is its claim to exclusive sovereignty?

This logic has ripple effects across the region. Turkey’s incursions into Syria, Russia’s operations in Ukraine and Georgia, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan and Yemen—all reflect the same underlying pattern: a strategic environment where legality is superseded by necessity, and multilateralism by unilateral calibration.

In this context, Iran’s vulnerability is not only strategic—it is existential. The strikes served as a demonstration that even a state obsessed with security and secrecy can be penetrated, fragmented, and exposed. The message to authoritarian regimes is clear: survival no longer depends solely on repression, but on internal cohesion, legitimacy, and international perception.

8. Regime Fragility and Regional Consequences

The most underappreciated consequence of Operation Rising Lion may lie in the psychological implosion of the Iranian regime’s image of invulnerability. The death of senior commanders and nuclear scientists dealt a tactical blow, but the symbolic effect was far greater: the regime’s armor of invincibility was pierced—not just by foreign firepower, but by domestic disloyalty.

In the days following the strikes, encrypted leaks and testimonies circulated from inside Iran’s military and scientific community. Some were anonymous, others not. But their message was unambiguous: we no longer believe in this regime. For a theocracy built on the myth of divine authority and revolutionary purity, this internal rupture is more dangerous than any external bomb.

The disaffection is not limited to elites. Across Iran’s urban centers, young people—already weary from economic collapse, forced veiling, censorship, and regional entanglements—interpreted the strike not as humiliation but as opportunity. Some even welcomed it. In whispered conversations and encrypted chats, a fragile hope emerged: perhaps the end of the clerical regime is finally within reach.

Regionally, the consequences of this potential unraveling are profound. Iranian proxies—Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hashd al-Shaabi—rely not only on Tehran’s funding but on the myth of strategic coherence. If Iran appears fractured, these actors may fragment as well. Coordination will erode, command structures may dissolve, and a new wave of local chaos may rise, particularly in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

However, this vacuum is also a window. In Afghanistan, where Iranian interference has long poisoned sectarian relations and empowered fundamentalist currents, a weakened or replaced Iranian regime could shift the balance. Iran has traditionally served as a geopolitical fence—blocking Afghan rapprochement with the Arab world, the West, and moderate Islamic states. Its decline may finally allow Afghanistan to emerge from its geopolitical suffocation, and rebuild a post-Islamist, pluralist political future.

That said, regime change is not synonymous with stability. The fall of Tehran’s theocracy—if abrupt or mismanaged—could trigger civil strife, elite purges, or even a military dictatorship. The key lies in whether regional and international actors can build a stabilization framework that prevents collapse and channels transition. Preemption without post-strike planning is not strategy—it is provocation without compass.

9. Rethinking Strategic Theory: Five Concepts in Context

Throughout this article, we have proposed five original concepts to understand the systemic transformation triggered by Operation Rising Lion. Together, they provide a vocabulary for navigating a world no longer governed by fixed rules, stable sovereignty, or rational equilibrium.

   •          Strategic Disruption Loop: Preemptive actions are no longer about deterring conflict, but generating cycles of instability. Rather than freeze the battlefield, they create motion—forcing adversaries into constant recalibration.

   •          Shadow Acceleration Doctrine: States under pressure no longer retaliate openly. Instead, they accelerate in the shadows—hiding, fragmenting, and innovating in ways that make deterrence harder and surveillance ineffective.

   •          Deterrence Decay Spiral: The mutual fear that once restrained escalation has eroded. Now, inaction appears riskier than action, and states are incentivized to strike first—even based on vague suspicions.

   •          Geostrategic Overload: Local conflicts are no longer local. Every missile launch, every sabotage, every airstrike generates global systemic consequences—economic, political, ecological—that redefine the meaning of “theater of war.”

   •          Post-Westphalian Preemption: Sovereignty is no longer absolute. States under internal stress and global suspicion become legitimate targets, even without international mandate—especially when their own populations no longer uphold them.

These five frameworks reveal a strategic environment in which fragility is not a breakdown—it is a structuring principle. The old lines between peace and war, legal and illegal, strong and weak, have been redrawn. The future will belong not to the stable, but to the adaptively fluid.

10. Epistemological Implications: Beyond Stability and Rationality

The normalisation of anticipatory warfare, covert collaboration, and internal fragmentation compels us to rethink the epistemological foundations of international relations theory. Traditional paradigms—realism, liberal institutionalism, constructivism—struggle to fully capture the mechanics of a world where uncertainty is not an exception, but a method.

Realism, with its emphasis on material power and rational self-interest, remains useful—but it underestimates the role of perception, narrative, and regime fragility. Liberal theories, based on institutions and cooperation, falter in contexts like Iran, where the state no longer speaks for the people, and where institutions are either captured or irrelevant. Constructivist frameworks help illuminate the erosion of normative consensus, but they often fail to predict the strategic behaviour of regimes in freefall.

What is needed is a hybrid epistemology, one that treats fragility not as weakness but as an operational logic. In this paradigm, legitimacy is fluid, sovereignty is contingent, and action is justified not by legality but by preemptive necessity. Intelligence, moreover, is not only technical—it is deeply political, often emerging from internal dissent, sabotage, and elite betrayal.

This applies acutely in the case of Iran. The strikes were successful not because of Israeli superiority alone, but because the regime is rotting from within. The fact that internal collaborators enabled precision targeting reveals an ontological crisis: the Islamic Republic, after four decades of theocratic rule, can no longer reproduce loyalty. The regime’s disintegration is intellectual before it is institutional.

And this has global consequences. Fragility is not confined to the “Global South.” It is spreading across systems, from democracies overwhelmed by polarization to autocracies hollowed out by fear. Fragility is becoming the architecture of the world system—not a deviation from order, but its structural core.

11. Strategic Recommendations: Managing the Post-Strike Order

In light of the transformative dynamics identified, several urgent strategic imperatives emerge for policymakers, analysts, and civil society actors:

   •          Reinforce Multilateral Mechanisms: The erosion of deterrence and the rise of anticipatory strikes demand new global norms of transparency and rapid conflict de-escalation. Mediation platforms must be reinvented to address asymmetry and ambiguity.

   •          Stabilization over Retaliation: In the event of Iranian regime collapse or internal implosion, international actors—especially those in the region—must prioritize stabilization frameworks over power competition. Afghanistan, for instance, needs support for autonomy and reconstruction, not a new proxy war.

   •          Protection of Civil Actors and Dissidents: The role of internal collaborators in Rising Lion illustrates the need to protect, not punish, those who resist authoritarian regimes from within. These actors are not traitors—they are the architects of regional transformation.

   •          Theoretical Innovation: Academic institutions must now equip the next generation of scholars to interpret a world in flux. A new strategic vocabulary must replace Cold War binaries. Terms like anticipatory governance, sovereignty fatigue, and layered legitimacy should enter mainstream discourse.

   •          Prepare for the Post-Mollah Era: A collapse of the Iranian theocracy is no longer unthinkable. It is possible and, for many, desirable. The region must prepare—not to exploit—but to support a genuine transition, respecting the agency of the Iranian people and the aspirations of its neighbours.

12. Conclusion: Fragility as the New Foundation

Operation Rising Lion did not only destroy nuclear centrifuges and command bunkers—it shattered conceptual boundaries. It marked the end of an era where states could assume that sovereignty, deterrence, or even internal repression could shield them from intervention.

The five concepts elaborated in this article—Strategic Disruption Loop, Shadow Acceleration Doctrine, Deterrence Decay Spiral, Geostrategic Overload, and Post-Westphalian Preemption—form the scaffolding of a new strategic age: one in which fragility becomes the grammar of international order.

Iran’s regime, wounded by sanctions, abandoned by its youth, and now infiltrated from within, stands as the most illustrative case of this transition. The clerical order, once feared and respected, is now a symbol of rigidity in a world that demands adaptability. Its collapse—if guided and not hijacked—may offer Afghanistan, and the region, a long-awaited release from decades of exported theocracy, militancy, and ideological suffocation.

Fragility, then, is not to be feared, but understood. It is the canvas upon which the next generation of order will be drawn. What we choose to paint—chaos or reconstruction—depends not on weapons, but on the courage to redefine legitimacy, power, and responsibility.

Let this article serve not just as analysis, but as a call for strategic lucidity in a fragile world—a world where the collapse of one regime can either provoke collapse or seed hope. It is up to us to decide which path history will follow.

Dr. Naim Asas

Political Scientist | International Affairs Analyst

Director, GERISS – Groupement d’Études et de Réflexions Internationales en Sciences Sociales en France