How Two Very Different Strikes Reveal a Shared Military Logic — With One Key Distinction

In the tangled web of modern warfare, the line between inspiration and imitation is often blurry. And in June 2025, when Israel launched a bold, multi-pronged attack deep inside Iranian territory, military analysts couldn’t help but notice something familiar.

The strike—targeted, timed, and strategically restrained—looked strikingly similar to Pakistan’s own cross-border response to India’s Operation Sindoor just weeks earlier.

Is this coincidence? Or did Israel just copy Pakistan’s 2025 strategy?

A Strategic Mirror: Targeted Strikes, Not Full-Scale War

Both nations executed a version of what military strategists call a "calibrated strike": a limited, high-impact offensive on military targets designed to send a message — without triggering total war.

• Pakistan’s move came in response to India’s Operation Sindoor, which allegedly struck militant training camps. Islamabad retaliated swiftly, hitting Indian military positions across the border under Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos. It was precise, defensive, and framed as a right of sovereign response.
• Israel’s attack, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, was far more ambitious in geography and target scope. It involved coordinated strikes on Iranian nuclear and missile infrastructure, and was backed by Mossad-run covert drone bases reportedly operating inside Iran. The difference? Iran had not launched an attack at that point.

So, while the style of execution may look similar, the intention behind them reveals a sharp contrast.

One Was Defensive. The Other, Preemptive.

This is where the two strategies diverge.

• Pakistan’s retaliation was defensive. India had struck first. Pakistan responded to restore deterrence and national credibility.
• Israel’s action was preemptive. It struck before Iran had launched a military attack on Israeli soil. Israel framed the operation as necessary to prevent a future threat — a controversial logic under international law.

That distinction matters. A defensive response has a legal and moral footing under Article 51 of the UN Charter. A preemptive strike, however, walks a legal tightrope and often provokes global debate about aggression, sovereignty, and escalation.

What Makes This Strategic Mimicry Possible?

Military operations don’t happen in a vacuum. Every nation observes, analyzes, and adapts from the actions of others — especially when it comes to complex, nuclear-adjacent standoffs.

Pakistan’s 2025 strike demonstrated that:

• A limited retaliation can send a powerful signal,
• Strategic targets can be hit without descending into total war,
• Carefully managing the narrative can keep the world from tipping into panic.

Israel likely took note — and applied that model to Iran, but with greater scale, deeper penetration, and wider consequences.

The Bigger Picture: Same Playbook, Different Games

The unsettling part isn’t just that Israel may have borrowed Pakistan’s strategy. It’s that this model of calculated brinkmanship is becoming normalized.

In a world where nuclear deterrence, cyber warfare, and covert intelligence all blend together, more states are likely to adopt the same logic:

• Strike just enough to show strength.
• Avoid dragging allies into war.
• Control the media narrative to frame it as “necessary.”

But not all strikes are equal — and not all actors are judged the same. Pakistan’s retaliation was scrutinized. Israel’s strike, despite likely violations of sovereignty and international norms, was met with muted criticism from the West.

That, too, is part of the strategy.

So did Israel copy Pakistan? Not literally. But the pattern is hard to ignore.

When a strategy proves effective — limited, forceful, and contained — others will follow suit. The danger is when preemptive logic becomes the norm, and the world slips into conflict not by accident, but by design.

And that’s exactly where we are.