Israel’s military campaign in Iran has emerged as a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict, with experts suggesting it may mark a historic turning point. The operation, which has already produced ‘enormous achievements,’ as noted by analysts, is seen as the result of years of meticulous preparation, battlefield innovation, and the development of advanced intelligence capabilities.
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a leading figure in U.S. policy on Iran, has praised the campaign as a ‘resounding military win.’ He highlighted the extensive damage inflicted on Iranian military capabilities, including the elimination of numerous senior military leaders, the destruction of a significant portion of Iran’s air force and missile launchers, and the impact on the country’s ballistic inventory. Dubowitz likened the campaign’s success to the historic Six-Day War of 1967, where Israel achieved a decisive victory against multiple Arab armies. He emphasized that while the campaign may take longer than six days, the trajectory is similar.
Despite the strategic and tactical advantages, the conflict has not been without its complications. Iran has retaliated with missile strikes, including an attack on the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, which injured hundreds. However, military analysts continue to assert that Israel retains the upper hand, both in terms of battlefield control and strategic maneuverability. Hilla Hadad-Chmelnik, a strategist at the ‘Mind Israel’ think tank and former CEO of the Ministry of Innovation, underscored that the success was the outcome of a prolonged effort, encompassing the development of long-range strike capabilities, the enhancement of intelligence systems, and the adaptation of operational doctrines learned from conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.
Hadad-Chmelnik pointed out that the IDF’s success was not a last-minute decision but the result of extensive preparation, including refining the methods used against Hezbollah, such as the rapid identification and neutralization of rocket launchers before strikes commence. She noted that these strategies, honed in the dense and immediate confrontations of the Gaza conflict, were now being applied to a far more complex and strategically significant adversary in Iran.
Iran’s response has also included a warning to the U.S., with the country threatening ‘all-out war’ if the United States joins the conflict. Dubowitz, however, cautioned that such a scenario is not inevitable if the U.S. chooses to engage with a clear strategic objective: dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, particularly the Fordow enrichment facility, which remains a key target. He suggested that President Donald Trump must ensure the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, whether through diplomatic negotiations or, if necessary, a targeted military intervention.
The expert perspectives indicate that the campaign’s success has opened new possibilities for U.S. involvement, as Hadad-Chmelnik suggested that the current situation may provide an ‘actual path to decisive success,’ unlike the complexities of conflicts in Ukraine or Afghanistan. Dubowitz also highlighted the potential for Israel’s actions to provoke domestic unrest in Iran, where the regime’s repressive apparatus has been targeted. He acknowledged that while people may not protest while under missile bombardment, the ongoing attacks on the Iranian government’s internal security structures could lead to greater public dissatisfaction in the long term.
The ongoing conflict continues to evolve, with its implications for regional stability and global security remaining under close scrutiny. Experts suggest that Israel’s campaign could mark a historical turning point, potentially shaping the future of the Middle East and influencing international relations beyond the region. The campaign’s outcomes may also serve as a warning or a lesson for other nations considering similar actions, depending on the outcome and its broader geopolitical implications.