The surprise was indeed remarkable — the Iranians were indeed caught in a false sense of security, and the blows delivered by the IDF and Mossad were indeed severe. However, comparing this to past strategic surprises in history misses an important point. Hitler surprised Stalin by invading Russia — and lived to regret it. Japan surprised the United States at Pearl Harbor — we all remember how that ended. Hamas surprised us on October 7 — and it’s highly likely this was a colossal mistake. There have been historical surprises that ended better, but often, when you humiliate a major power like the U.S., Russia, Israel, or Iran, you create an overwhelming motivation for revenge.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took an unreasonable gamble — the kind a national leader is not supposed to take with the fate of his country. Israel cannot prevent the severe damage caused by Iran’s ballistic missiles. Despite what propaganda messages are trying to claim, we are not successfully intercepting them. The economics of interception dictate a cruel set of priorities, and Iran is managing to strike with a level of accuracy we have not previously seen from any enemy. Many of these hits are not being reported in the media, under the reasoning that we must not provide intelligence to the enemy. On the other hand, this leaves the Israeli public unaware of the price it is paying — and will pay. The New York Times reported a strike on the Kirya military base, and there were reports of hits on the oil refineries and the Weizmann Institute.
The IDF is releasing numerous statements about strikes on missile launchers and Iran’s missile capabilities. Yet missile experts doubt our ability to succeed in this mission against a country that spans 1.6 million square kilometers. This could go on for weeks — or even longer. The cost we will pay in human lives, economic damage, and deterrence — is enormous.
Perhaps this terrible price is worth paying in order to achieve the outcome Netanyahu presented at the start of the operation: eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. The problem is that, according to all experts, this outcome is impossible. Netanyahu knows this — and his adviser Tzachi Hanegbi has admitted as much.
Netanyahu also knows that the second goal he presented is unrealistic. If only it were possible to strip Iran of its ability to produce and launch ballistic missiles toward Israel. But there is no military path to achieve this goal.
The true objective of the war is being denied — ironically — in official government briefings: regime change. That is a goal for which the costs of war may indeed be worth paying. If Netanyahu were to achieve it, he would deserve all the accolades his supporters bestow upon him. But according to experts on Iran, there is little chance that this will be the outcome of Israel’s offensive. One expert even remarked that Iran is now experiencing a “rally around the flag” effect — even power centers that don’t support the regime are uniting around the need to repel Israel’s attack.
A step below that fantasy lies a more plausible scenario: Iran is struck, humiliated, and the Supreme Leader begins to fear for the regime’s survival — prompting him to sign an agreement with the United States that would prohibit uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, and perhaps even place limits on ballistic missile production. An agreement is just an agreement, and it's unclear how long it could be enforced — but even that would be a result that could, with some effort, justify going to war.
For such a scenario to materialize, active American involvement in the attack would be necessary. However, it appears that President Donald Trump is distancing himself from such involvement. To embark on a bloody war without a U.S. commitment is an act of irresponsibility — not to say a dangerous gamble with all our lives. The fact that Netanyahu managed to drag an entire country into such a risky bet, without encountering a single point of resistance among decision-makers, only shows what his rule has done to Israel’s leadership in recent years.