Israel’s telegraphed strikes against Iran’s military leadership and nuclear enrichment facilities – dubbed “Operation Rising Lion,” a nod to Jewish scripture and also possibly a reference to the old Persian flag – have provided the most compelling real-world demonstration of air superiority since the F-35 fighter aircraft’s introduction to combat operations.
The scale and success of Israel’s total impunity over Iran’s air defense network that paved the way for the recent U.S. surgical strikes against Iran’s nuclear program offer lessons for defense planners in this era of great power competition.
The anatomy of air supremacy
The Israeli Air Force’s romp through Iranian airspace represents a masterclass in modern air warfare.
Operating a fleet of 42 F-35I “Adir” aircraft alongside around 250 F-16s (the most modern of which are the F-16I “Sufa”) and 100 F-15s (with the upgraded F-15I “Ra’am” roughly equivalent to the F-15EX) fighters, Israel demonstrated how a modest air force can achieve decisive results against a numerically superior adversary across a land mass that is nearly 75 times larger.
The operation targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, air defense networks, command and control nodes and ballistic missile sites, neutralizing Iran’s ability to mount meaningful retaliation.
The Israelis have validated the core premise that stealthy, fifth-generation fighters such as the F-35 Lightning II can render traditional air defense systems almost completely ineffective. Iranian air defenders found themselves firing blindly into empty sky, their radars unable to maintain tracking on the low-observable F-35s penetrating their airspace – when they were even able to fire at all.
This represents a significant case study in the history of air warfare, where technological superiority can overcome numerical disadvantage with unprecedented effectiveness.
The Israeli operation also highlighted the importance of intelligence integration. Jerusalem’s network of operatives provided real-time targeting data and conducted sabotage operations, creating corridors for the following fighters to exploit.
Procurement implications
The lessons could not be more timely – or alarming – for American defense planners. The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2026 budget request, which cuts F-35 procurement from 44 aircraft in fiscal 2025 to just 24 in fiscal 2026, appears increasingly misguided in light of the aircraft’s demonstrated combat effectiveness. The Israeli experience suggests that F-35 capabilities may be irreplaceable in contested environments against peer adversaries.
The Air Force’s decision to nearly halve its F-35 buy while requesting only 21 F-15EX aircraft reflects a strategy that prioritizes cost savings over transformational capabilities. This timing could not be worse, as Beijing will undoubtedly study Operation Rising Lion as intensively as they analyze the 1991 Gulf War – the preeminent air superiority case study.
The demonstration of how a few advanced aircraft can penetrate layered air defenses will inform planning for potential conflicts in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. Unlike the permissive environment Israel faced over Iran after it hobbled Iran’s air defenses last year, a potential Indo-Pacific conflict would feature sophisticated air defense systems, advanced fighter aircraft and the world’s most challenging maritime and littoral geography.
This makes American procurement even more consequential, as the ability to contest airspace in the Western Pacific will determine the winner or loser of any future war.
Architecture of success
While the F-35’s stealth capabilities grabbed headlines, Operation Rising Lion’s success also depended on a sophisticated ecosystem of supporting capabilities. The operation demonstrated how modern air campaigns demand integrated intelligence, logistics and electronic warfare capabilities working together.
Mossad’s infiltration of Iranian security networks allowed planners to map targets with extraordinary accuracy. Israeli aircraft knew exactly where threats were located and when they would be most vulnerable. Mossad even set up short-range drone bases inside Iran to strike at ballistic missile emplacements to prevent counterstrike.
Aerial refueling capabilities proved equally crucial, enabling Israeli aircraft to sustain operations over Iranian territory for extended periods, maintaining persistent pressure on Iranian defenses while operating nearly 1,000 miles distant from their home bases.
Fourth-generation fighter limitations
While Israel’s upgraded fourth-generation fighters played crucial roles against Iran’s antiquated air defenses, their success reveals as much about Iranian weaknesses as Israeli strengths. The F-16I and F-15Is could operate effectively only after special operators and F-35s had destroyed Iran’s most capable air defense systems. Fourth-generation aircraft were developed from the 1970s onward and incorporated many upgrades such as advanced avionics, multirole capability and beyond visual range weapons.
However, Beijing’s integrated air defense networks, featuring advanced HQ-22 and HQ-9 systems alongside fifth-generation J-20 fighters, would present threats that fourth-generation aircraft – regardless of upgrades – simply cannot survive. The permissive environment over Iran would not exist in contested airspace over the Taiwan Strait.
This underscores the relevance to procurement. While fourth-generation platforms retain value in lower-threat environments, peer conflicts will demand the capabilities that only fifth-generation aircraft provide.
Iran’s national humiliation
The most strategically echoing aspect of Operation Rising Lion is Iran’s complete inability to mount meaningful air retaliation. The Islamic Republic’s frankly pitiful air force has proven again and again that it can’t even get off the ground in the face of Israeli air attack, and now has ceased to exist. Their cheap one-way attack drones and ballistic missiles have barely made it through the Israeli missile shield. Their nation lies prostrated before the IAF, a national humiliation that will undoubtedly have serious domestic consequences.
Iran’s investment in ballistic missiles and proxy forces proved inadequate when faced with an adversary capable of achieving complete air dominance. The inability to contest airspace left Iran’s strategic assets completely vulnerable to attack. Air superiority has completely paralyzed a nation of 90.6 million with pretensions to regional power.
The strategic imperative
Israel’s strategic success provides a blueprint for how air power can achieve strategic objectives against determined adversaries. With a fleet of fewer than 400 combat aircraft, Israel neutralized a far larger power‘s military capabilities and caused serious damage to its nuclear program.
For the United States, facing potential conflicts against adversaries with far more sophisticated air defenses than Iran, the lesson is clear: fifth and upgraded fourth generation fighter capabilities are essential tools for maintaining operational mobility and strategic flexibility. The Pentagon’s procurement strategy should reflect this reality, prioritizing the unique capabilities that platforms like the F-35 provide over the false economy of temporary savings.
Operation Rising Lion may very well prove to be a watershed in demonstrating the decisive value of advanced air power. American defense planners would be wise to heed its lessons before finding themselves in a position similar to Iran’s—outmatched by adversaries who invested in the technologies and tools that matter most.
