Israel between the euphoria of the first strike and the shock of the Iranian response

Five days after the Israeli occupation authorities shut down phone lines and the internet in Gaza, people have tasted digital silence. An isolation that may seem comfortable for a moment, but is extremely dangerous, as people's voices are silenced and the ability to report crimes of genocide and starvation to the world is disrupted.

In this media vacuum, Israel launched a massive airstrike on Iran, with all its political and media institutions at all levels filled with euphoria over what it called Operation "People Like Lions." It was portrayed as a miraculous achievement proving the prowess of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Air Force in surprising Iran. Commentators touted its ability to disable nuclear facilities and kill prominent leaders and scientists, but other analysts doubted that the strike would actually delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb.

On Saturday evening, the scene changed. Three air raid sirens sent millions of Israelis into shelters amid a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones. The euphoria of victory quickly dissipated, replaced by the horror of destruction and deaths. A torrent of criticism began against Netanyahu and his government, accused of pushing the occupying state into a war that would fulfill his 18-year-old dream of destroying Iran's nuclear program—a dream whose cost could have been avoided had he not persuaded the Donald Trump administration to cancel the nuclear agreement.

Following this, some Israeli commentators asked, "Was the war necessary?" They noted that the Iranians had demonstrated legendary resilience during their war with Iraq. Some commentators advised cutting losses and returning to the negotiating table under US administration auspices, before Israel found itself begging for a ceasefire and Iran rejecting it.

The central dilemma in Israeli strategy is that inflicting deep and lasting damage to the enrichment system is impossible without significant American involvement. Even expanding the target bank to include civilian facilities will not bring down the regime; rather, it will plunge both sides into a prolonged war of attrition.

Israeli military experts acknowledge that Israel alone is incapable of destroying nuclear facilities. Therefore, the political echelon has adopted a "complex" plan: striking nuclear sites, dismantling air defenses, reducing the missile threat, and targeting the security, military, and political elite, while threatening to strike the oil infrastructure. All this is done to draw Iran into negotiations from a position of weakness, or at least postpone its project for several years.

Destroying the nuclear program militarily is contingent on two conditions: the United States joining with its bunker-busting bombs, or waging a prolonged air campaign that would exhaust everyone. The second option would mean a war of attrition that could last for months; intermittent missile and drone attacks; a partial paralysis of Ben Gurion Airport; and economic and educational crises.

Amid the euphoria of the "opening strike," military experts warn that the operation lacks a clear "final exit mechanism." Iran's long-standing patience, or what I call its inertia, makes prolonging the attrition a victory in itself, and it has yet to use its heavier-warheaded Khorramshahr missiles or low-radar-signature cruise missiles.

No matter how superior the Israeli Air Force and Mossad are, they still face between five and ten thousand targets across Iran's vast territory—a number that reduces superiority to a mere theoretical calculation. The expected costs far exceed what Israel has incurred in its wars with Gaza, and there is no escape from a political solution that precedes, rather than follows, the coming losses.