Understanding Israel’s Tactical Approach: A Look at the Iran Campaign
In recent observations, it has been noted that Israel excels in tactical maneuvers but often lacks a long-term strategic vision. This tendency is particularly evident in their ongoing campaign against Iran. Given the unpredictable nature of the region, a short-term focus is understandable—elaborate plans can quickly unravel due to unforeseen events. This mindset is familiar to those who have spent time in the region, shaping the policies that emerge from such a context.
The Israeli military operations in Gaza further illustrate this point. The Israeli government has struggled to articulate a clear vision for the future or what the aftermath of their actions will look like in the coastal strip. Even senior advisors, when pressed privately, often admit uncertainty regarding the next steps.
While it might seem unjust to label a military operation against Iran—an effort that has been in the making for decades—as merely tactical, the question remains: is there a comprehensive strategy that extends beyond immediate objectives? This is a significant concern for Israel’s allies.
History has shown us that short-term military actions can lead to long-term chaos. From Libya to Afghanistan, the aftermath of regime changes has often resulted in instability, with countless lives lost and regions plunged into turmoil. This echoes the warning famously attributed to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who cautioned President George W. Bush about the "Pottery Barn rule" before the invasion of Iraq: "You break it, you own it." Unfortunately, this lesson was not heeded, leading to a protracted and bloody conflict.
Although Israel is not planning an invasion of Iran, its military actions are reminiscent of past interventions that sought to destabilize governments. Israel’s strategy appears to aim for the downfall of the current Iranian regime, which came to power in the late 1970s. However, Iran’s leadership has shown resilience, and the country’s demographic of 90 million is rife with social and political discontent. The existing government is characterized by intense factional competition, which often breeds suspicion and rivalry.
After decades of authoritarian theocratic rule, there are no substantial opposition movements ready to take the helm should the current regime falter. While there may be a sense of national cohesion and historical resentment toward foreign interference, this may not be enough to maintain stability. If Iran were to descend into chaos, it would occur under Israel’s watch. A fractured Iran could lead to significant consequences for the region, and Israel could find itself bearing the burden of that fallout, much like the U.S. with Iraq.
This raises critical questions for Israel: Have they fully considered the potential repercussions of their actions? What strategic vision exists beyond immediate military victories? And if the U.S. were to become involved—as suggested by former President Donald Trump—are they prepared to navigate the complexities of the ensuing legacy?
At the very least, it is vital for the Israeli administration and its allies to discuss potential plans for what comes next, ensuring that they are not caught off guard by the unpredictable nature of the region.
