The recent Israeli military strike on Iran cannot be dismissed as a mere tactical move in the long-standing hostilities between Tehran and Tel Aviv. It unfolded within a complex backdrop of evolving security threats, strategic recalculations, and the personal agendas of Israeli decision-makers. The roots of this operation trace back to October 7, 2023, following Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Storm, and have now reached a boiling point. In essence, the attack reflected a new Israeli offensive doctrine aimed at confronting mounting challenges to the regime’s survival.
After Hamas’s operation sent shockwaves through Israel’s security establishment, deep structural vulnerabilities across its military, intelligence, and security sectors came to light. This exposed a phenomenon that Israeli analysts have dubbed a “strategic stupor,” eroding public confidence in the state’s ability to safeguard its citizens and weakening the legitimacy of both the government and the military.
To restore its shattered deterrence, Tel Aviv turned to a campaign of sustained and repeated strikes against perceived threats—chief among them, Iran.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s personal crisis also played a decisive role in triggering the conflict. He was grappling with multiple corruption cases, intense internal pressure, widespread public protests, intelligence failures in Gaza, growing distrust within the army, and bitter political infighting. For Netanyahu, war was not a threat—it was a last lifeline. He used military confrontation as a tool to manage domestic turmoil and cling to political survival.
From Syria to Iran: Doctrine of Continuous Preemption
Israel’s large-scale attacks on Syrian infrastructure following Bashar al-Assad’s near-collapse revealed that its new strategy wasn’t confined to Iran. Rather, it was a broad offensive doctrine against any actor with the potential to develop defensive, intelligence, or national structures that could pose a future threat to Israeli interests.
Just as regime collapse in Syria allowed for the destruction of its military, industrial, and even police infrastructure, Israel also sees opportunities in destabilizing states like Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, and even Pakistan—seeking to eliminate regional threats before they fully emerge.
In this context, the June 13 strike on Iran was not impulsive or reactive. It was a calculated, premeditated move based on the assumption that Iran, fatigued by recent developments in the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine), lacked the capacity to respond effectively to a swift attack. This miscalculation led to the green light for action.
Washington’s Role: Ally or Crisis Enabler?
One of the key issues in this saga is the role of the United States. Even if Israel initiated the strike independently, it is hard to believe the operation could have taken place without at least a tacit green light from Washington. Former President Donald Trump has not denied coordination, and various reports confirm that the U.S. provided Israel with logistical and intelligence support.
Trump, facing crises on multiple fronts—Gaza, Ukraine, a trade war with China, and failures in reviving the U.S. economy—saw a potential win against Iran as a symbolic success that wouldn’t require direct U.S. involvement. But that calculation unraveled almost immediately.
12-Day War Reverses Expectations
Contrary to the expectations of Tel Aviv and the White House, Iran did not collapse under the surprise attack. Instead, it rapidly activated its decision-making and operational command systems, inflicting heavy blows on Israel. The destruction of intelligence, military, energy, and advanced industrial facilities—and even threats to Israeli tech infrastructure—completely upended the balance of power.
Three major crises paralyzed Israel during the war:
The loss of the element of surprise and the beginning of Iran’s counterstrikes;
The failure of predictions regarding social unrest inside Iran;
The collapse of societal resilience in the occupied territories, marked by mass evacuations from key areas.
Continuing the war would have only deepened an already costly impasse. As a result, Netanyahu appealed to Washington to broker a ceasefire that would allow Israel to symbolically strike Iran’s nuclear sites and claim a face-saving victory. However, Iran rejected the ceasefire and delivered a final blow to Tel Aviv, signaling it would not remain a passive player in regional military affairs.
Is Another Attack on the Horizon?
The pressing question now being debated in strategic circles is: Will Israel launch another attack on Iran? This depends on several critical factors:
First, if Tel Aviv and Washington could have gained any real advantage from continuing the war, why did they halt the operation after paying the price of starting it? The answer is clear: prolonging the conflict brought only losses—no gains.
Second, if Israel is planning to regroup for a second attack, Iran will also have time to prepare. Moreover, the first attack relied on the element of surprise. That advantage is now gone. Iran will be entering the next round fully alert, making any future offensive exponentially riskier for Israel.
Third, can Israel strike again without Washington’s explicit approval? Unlikely. Unlike Israel, which focuses solely on military solutions, the U.S. often relies on political mechanisms to pursue its strategic goals at lower cost. Ongoing developments across the region and in global diplomacy show that Washington is increasingly inclined to employ political tools in managing a crisis that has grown far more complex. The 12-day war demonstrated that military action in a region where local crises can rapidly spiral into global ones is unlikely to resolve conflict—and may in fact unleash uncontrollable consequences.
Fourth, does Israel have the capacity to withstand a second blow? This time, not just Tehran but its allies as well are better prepared and more attuned to the war’s dynamics. A second misstep could irreparably damage Israel’s internal and regional credibility.
Mutual Deterrence and the End of a Fantasy
The 12-day war between Iran and Israel ended the illusion of Israel’s absolute military supremacy. The war proved that a first-strike strategy, if it does not achieve decisive victory, leads only to strategic paralysis.
Far from restoring its deterrence, Israel’s assault backfired—elevating Iran’s own deterrent power in the process.
From now on, any military decision against Iran must be weighed far more carefully, taking into account the region’s evolving capabilities and a much deeper understanding of Tehran’s potential response. In today’s volatile geopolitical landscape, there is no room for mistakes—and no easy escape from their consequences.
NOURNEWS