Confrontation Scenarios: A Reading of War Options and Surgical Strikes Against Iran

Hebrew press reports have revealed the expected scenarios for any potential military confrontation led by the United States against Iran, coinciding with the completion of the arrival of American military reinforcements in the region. Sources indicated that Tehran, despite its inability to challenge traditional American power, possesses asymmetrical deterrence tools in the form of a massive missile arsenal and widespread regional proxies.\n\nEstimates suggest that the U.S. military is planning a prolonged military campaign that could last several weeks, reflecting a tendency within the American administration to explore the possibility of bringing about deep political change in the structure of the Iranian regime. However, a strategic question arises about the realism of this goal and the ability of military force alone to achieve it without sliding into long ground conflicts.\n\nIn this context, statements by American officials, including J.D. Vance, emphasize that the mission of regime change must originate from the Iranian people themselves. This stance reflects caution against repeating past experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the absence of a unified and organized Iranian opposition capable of leading the transitional phase in the event of the regime's collapse.\n\nOne proposed scenario is to increase military pressure to stimulate internal protests and undermine the regime from within. But this option clashes with the reality that the Iranian leadership, especially the Revolutionary Guard, does not have a strategy for withdrawal or escape; instead, it will tend to use excessive force to suppress any disturbances that threaten its survival, which could drag the country into civil war.\n\nRegarding the nuclear file, any attack targeting nuclear facilities faces a major technical and strategic dilemma, as air strikes cannot erase the accumulated scientific expertise of Iranian cadres. Moreover, destroying declared sites does not guarantee the elimination of enriched uranium stockpiles that may be distributed in secret and fortified underground locations.\n\nSources warn that Iran may emerge from any nuclear strike with greater determination to complete its armament project, considering that military confrontation may lift the psychological and political restrictions that prevented Tehran from reaching the nuclear threshold. This scenario places decision-makers before the challenge of the long-term feasibility of such surgical military operations.\n\nRegarding missile capabilities, analysts believe that destroying the Iranian missile project is a vital goal to reduce Tehran's deterrence capability. Although a widespread campaign could inflict severe damage on the production infrastructure, experience in other fronts has proven the difficulty of completely eliminating these capabilities, which rely on technologies that can be re-manufactured and restored.\n\nOn another note, the option of imposing negotiations under military pressure remains preferred by some circles in Washington, including President Trump's inclinations. The logic here is that targeted strikes might force the Iranian leadership to accept harsh conditions it previously rejected, to avoid the complete collapse of the regime under the weight of attrition.\n\nHowever, the Iranian leadership has historically proven its ability to 'absorb blows' and bet on the time factor, believing that prolonging the conflict will increase internal political pressure on the American administration. This Iranian gamble aims to push Washington to seek a quick political exit without achieving real strategic gains on the ground.\n\n"Decapitation" or targeting the supreme leadership, especially Khamenei, emerges as one of the most dangerous and extreme options. Sources confirm that such a step could lead to completely counterproductive results, as the Iranian system is characterized by an institutional rather than individual structure, and the absence of the pivotal figure could lead to the rise of more radical currents within the Revolutionary Guard.\n\nMoreover, targeting major religious symbols could provoke a wave of overwhelming anger among regime loyalists at home and abroad, opening the door to widespread retaliatory actions targeting American interests and its allies in the region. This escalation could drag the United States into a comprehensive regional war that was not part of its initial plans.\n\nIsraeli readings emphasize that the overwhelming military superiority of the United States does not necessarily guarantee a decisive strategic victory. A direct confrontation with a country the size of Iran differs fundamentally from proxy wars and requires a precise definition of 'success' before embarking on any military action whose outcomes may be unknown.\n\nIn conclusion, all proposed options appear fraught with risks and complex geopolitical repercussions, as there is no simple path that guarantees neutralizing the Iranian threat without heavy costs. The fundamental question facing Washington remains its willingness to bear the consequences of potential chaos or engage in a long-term stabilization process in the region.\n\nThe current military buildup may be a tool for diplomatic pressure as much as it is preparation for war, but sliding into direct confrontation remains a possibility if political paths reach a dead end. Regional parties are cautiously monitoring these developments, awaiting the outcome of American moves in the coming weeks.\n\nAmerican military superiority in direct conflict does not necessarily mean strategic priority; direct confrontation requires defining the goals of success and its cost in advance.