-- marked by airstrikes on nuclear installations and the targeted killing of high-ranking military officials -- represent its boldest offensive gambit. Yet as the conflict draws on, what is emerging is not the picture of a weakened Iran grovelling for a deal, but rather a portrait of Israeli overreach. The Israeli leadership, it now seems, may have significantly underestimated the depth of Iranian resilience, the robustness of its military infrastructure and the reach of its missiles.As there is no let-up in the Iran-Israel conflict, with casualties mounting on both sides as they exchange missile attacks, many think Israel might have made a strategic miscalculation, as it is becoming apparent that it may not be able to subdue Iran on its own.
“They (the Israelis) underestimated the Iranian ability to regroup after the Israelis very successfully targeted the top leadership of the Iranian military and managed to kill several of them,” Trita Parsi, vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told CNN. Parsi said Israel believed they had “disrupted Iranian command and control” but that idea was “quickly restructured.” What we are seeing now is that “Iranian missiles are successful in penetrating all layers of Israel’s air defense systems,” Parsi said. Parsi was speaking to CNN as new waves of
Iranian missiles rained down in the early hours of Monday morning and struck multiple locations.
|
Blind radar, blistering speed: How Israeli jets crippled Iran’s air defence in 48 hours, something Russia couldn't do in 3 yearsIsrael’s attack on Iran’s
Natanz nuclear facility was hailed in some quarters as a major tactical success. However, on closer examination, the limitations of the strike have become starkly apparent. While parts of the facility suffered damage, reports suggest that the most critical sections, especially the subterranean enrichment halls buried beneath layers of reinforced concrete, remained largely intact. The Fordow facility, located deep inside a mountain and even more heavily fortified than Natanz, remains untouched. Intelligence assessments indicate that it would require American-supplied bunker-busting ordnance, likely deployed from American B-2 stealth bombers, to inflict lasting damage on such hardened sites. Despite its advanced air force and deep-strike capabilities, Israel simply lacks the tools necessary to neutralize Iran’s nuclear infrastructure completely.
"While the US has B-2 stealth bombers with 30,000lb massive ordnance penetrators that are designed just for this type of strike, Israel’s options are more limited — if it is operating by itself," says a report in the Financial Times. "Israeli F-15 fighter bombers can carry 4,000-5,000lb GBU-28 bunker-buster bombs, each capable of punching through 5-6m of concrete. Israel does have such bombs but their numbers are a closely guarded secret, and few analysts believe the country has enough on its own to do the job."Israel’s forces “don’t have enough 5,000-pounders” to take out Fordow and Natanz, retired
US Air Force General Charles Wald, who now works for the Jewish Institute for the National Security of America, had said in April.“They can do considerable damage to Iran’s nuclear programme,” Matthew Savill, the head of the military sciences department at the Royal United Services Institute in London, told FT. “It’s doubtful they can destroy it all on their own, but I think they are prepared to keep hitting it over time.”
This operational limitation has cast a long shadow over the strategic calculus behind the attacks. If the principal objective was to delay or dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, the evidence suggests that the mission fell short. Iran has, in fact, accelerated its nuclear activities in response, sending a clear signal that deterrence through limited aerial bombardment may no longer be viable. One fallout of the Israeli attack is Iran preparing a bill that will push it towards exiting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The timing of this statement is also crucial, as Israel alleged that Iran is on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.
| Sea shield activated: How Israel’s navy used India-developed missile tech to stop Iran’s drones
Perhaps more disconcerting for Israeli defence planners is the revelation that Iranian missile forces managed to breach several layers of Israel’s much-vaunted multi-tiered air defense systems, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow systems. While Israel intercepted many incoming projectiles, a number of Iranian missiles penetrated these defences, causing damage and raising fundamental questions about the effectiveness of Israel’s air defence in the face of a determined and technologically evolving adversary.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards claimed to have employed a novel attack method that allegedly caused Israel's multi-layered defence systems to target each other. "The initiatives and capabilities used in this operation, despite the comprehensive support of the United States and Western powers and the possession of the most up-to-date and newest defence technology, led to the successful and maximum hitting of the missiles on the targets in the occupied territories," it said.
Iran’s ability to strike back is imposing an unpredictable cost on Israel as show the striking visuals of damage Iranian missiles have done in Israel.
Israel may also have underestimated the Islamic Republic’s institutional resilience. The targeted assassinations of several top-ranking Iranian military commanders were expected to sow confusion within Tehran’s defense establishment. Yet, contrary to Israeli expectations, Iran’s military apparatus appears to have quickly regrouped. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, long structured to withstand decapitation strikes, has shown an ability to reconstitute command hierarchies and maintain strategic continuity.
This capacity for internal regeneration reveals the fundamental misapprehension at the heart of Israeli strategy: the belief that removing individuals would collapse operational effectiveness. In reality, the IRGC is deeply entrenched, ideologically driven and operationally compartmentalized, making it remarkably resistant to leadership attrition.
Although Israeli officials have been careful not to explicitly state that regime change in Iran is their endgame, the scale and nature of the recent strikes, especially the focus on top leadership targets, suggests that undermining the Islamic Republic’s stability may well be a hidden objective. US President Donald Trump recently blocked an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to two US officials who spoke to Reuters.
If Israel has regime change as one of its objectives, this would constitute a grave misjudgment. No regime in the Middle East has survived more pressure, sanctions, isolation and conflict than the Islamic Republic. From the Iran-Iraq War to decades of international sanctions, the regime has cultivated a political and military structure that is deeply entrenched.
History suggests that air campaigns alone cannot produce regime change. From Serbia to Libya to Iraq, efforts to dislodge entrenched governments have typically required either massive ground invasions or internal revolutions, neither of which seems to be within Israel’s grasp. If Israel’s strategy hinges on triggering popular unrest or fractures in top command through airpower, it hasn't appeared to work so far.
Perhaps the clearest indication of Israel’s realisation that it can't go all alone against Iran is its apparent effort to draw the US into a broader conflict. With the realization that its military assets are insufficient to accomplish key strategic objectives, including neutralizing Fordow and toppling or significantly weakening the regime, Israel is lobbying, implicitly and explicitly, for deeper American involvement. This push, however, is fraught with risk.
The US, while committed to Israeli security, is also acutely aware of the risks of escalation. A direct US-Iran war would destabilize global oil markets, risk American personnel stationed at military bases across the region, and potentially ignite a multi-front war involving other actors. It is far from certain that the US is willing to be drawn into such a scenario. Trump on Sunday called on Iran and Israel to "make a deal". However, he also suggested that fighting may continue before any agreement is reached. So far, it appears the US would prefer the conflict to end instead of jumping right into it.
Israel has demonstrated tactical audacity by mounting bold attacks on Iran, but it may have misjudged Iran’s depth, durability and capacity for calibrated retaliation. This has placed the region on a knife's edge as the conflict risks sliding into full-scale war, eventually drawing in the US as well as other actors.
(With inputs from agencies)
