The goals of the war on Iran are within our grasp… but they seem lost

On October 7, Israel was subjected to a surprise attack that brought the Middle East back into a state of extreme tension. From Tel Aviv's perspective, this attack was not just a fleeting incident, but an extension of Iran's strategy in the region, which practices long-term attrition through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Every movement, every missile, and every threat is seen in Israel as a test of the viability of its deterrence doctrine, where any existential threat is considered a justification for a decisive and swift response. Israel's response went beyond a military operation to become both a symbolic and punitive message, aimed at punishing Iran for supporting its proxies, affirming Israel's continued existence, and declaring that any dream of an existential threat has ended.

This firm response is not random; rather, it stems from an Israeli mindset governed by the instinct for survival. Israeli existence is surrounded by a difficult historical, geographical, and political environment, which the state considers an inherently "repellent" environment, both in terms of direct threats and the hostile regional environment. Therefore, any threat, even if limited, is viewed as a test of the state's survival. Hence the intensity and speed of the Israeli response, as the state treats every threat as an opportunity to establish long-term deterrence, and the instinct for survival makes the response swift and decisive at times, regardless of regional or long-term costs. This partly explains the gap with the United States, which tends to view the conflict through a broader and more conservative strategic lens, while Israel focuses on the immediate and existential threat at the present moment.

In this context, the United States was drawn into Israel's desire for revenge and deterrence, and did not prepare its objectives in advance, nor was it ready for a war of this magnitude, because the primary objective was purely Israeli: to inflict punishment on Iran and leave the subsequent results open to dealing with circumstances at the time. Among Israel's most ambitious and perhaps least logical goals from a traditional strategic perspective was the attempt to create chaos within Iran and stir up stagnant waters. The Iranian regime is very conservative and operates cautiously without exposing itself to direct prosecution, making any external intervention to cause internal unrest extremely difficult. This desire presented Israel with a challenge and a tempting provocation at the same time, because it provides a means to weaken Iran without direct confrontation with its cohesive institutions.

Here, the gap in objectives between Israel and the United States becomes clear. Israel wants swift punishment and a comprehensive deterrent message, while the United States realizes that any attempt to completely change the Iranian regime would require years of ground intervention, making regime change a distant and unrealistic goal at the current stage. Moreover, the American approach to managing the conflict reflects a kind of deliberate chaos rather than precise strategic planning, as messages contradict and military and political orientations change rapidly, leaving allies and markets in a state of constant anticipation. In contrast, Israel expands the scope of its objectives to include Iran's vital energy facilities and missile capabilities, in an attempt to maximize pressure on the regime, while Washington tries to control the pace and restrict its objectives to avoid sliding into an uncalculated widespread war.

Furthermore, Israel's response was not limited to confronting Iran only, but extended to carry clear messages to the rest of the region's countries. From Tel Aviv's perspective, every military operation sends a signal that Israel is capable of protecting itself and deterring any threat, and that any attempt to weaken it or test its capabilities will be met with a decisive and immediate response. These messages also aim to remind allies and adversaries alike that Israel is not only an existing state, but a strategic power that can dictate the rules of the game in the region. The escalation in various locations, whether in Gaza or southern Lebanon, or targeting Iran's missile and energy capabilities, is not viewed in Israel as merely a military operation, but as part of a continuous deterrence strategy to renew regional prestige, and to affirm that any attempt to threaten Israel's existence is a red line that cannot be crossed.

Consequently, the war on Iran has become a collision arena between Israel's deterrence doctrine, the instinct for survival that governs every decision and response, American chaos, and Iran's attrition strategy through its proxies in the region. Every week brings new possibilities of unexpected escalation, diplomatic surprises, or reactions from Iran through its proxies. Israel's most ambitious scenario, which is regime change in Iran or creating internal chaos, could lead to deep regional chaos including state collapse, internal conflicts, and large waves of refugees, while the most likely scenario for the United States, with its awareness of the limitations and consequences, is limited to a partial victory and inflicting punishment, with dealing with the results later according to the prevailing circumstances.

In the end, the war on Iran is not just a military conflict, but a symbolic war of deterrence in which the United States was drawn into Israel's retaliatory goals, with open outcomes thereafter, and also aims to destabilize an internally fortified regime. It is a reminder that Israel remains, and that any existential threat is met with a decisive response, and that regional repercussions and long-term results will be managed according to the available data at the moment, making the conflict complex and full of contradictions from its beginning.