Assessment Of Israel's 'Operation Days Of Repentance'

Do the negatives of the strike on Iran outweigh the positives?

Based on very initial knowledge and limited information, I would conclude the following results of Israel's three-wave October 26 strike on Iran, which were partly strategic but mostly tactical:

Israel dispelled the 30-year obsession in the West that a strike would have apocalyptic consequences and established a precedent for hitting Iran directly. This is no small achievement, as it lifts an analytical and policy straight-jacket that paralyzed Israel and others for decades. Iran has been exposed as weak, its bluffs and bluster called. The emperor has only old, threadbare underwear—not quite nude, but close.

Israel started normalizing the act of striking Iran in much the same way that, over the years, Israeli strikes on Syria have become routine and barely noticed.

Israel set itself up well for a more impactful strike in the unlikely event that Iran responds in a manner that justifies a severe Israeli counter-strike.

Israel demonstrated itself as a tactical genius and a military power rivaled by none in competence—a true pride of the Jewish people.

On the Negative Side: Strategic Failures

The United States wanted Israel to hit targets that aligned with U.S. priorities, especially those impacting Russia's war efforts in Ukraine. Israel did hit these targets, but this limited its focus on Iran itself.

Israel restricted its strike to those sites necessary for operational freedom over Iran, primarily anti-aircraft systems, without targeting infrastructure that could truly cripple Iran’s capacity or push the Iranian regime into destabilization.

Israel avoided sites crucial to Iran's regime stability, including nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure, and symbolic regime figures, likely due to Iran's pre-strike posturing. Thus, despite Iran and its proxies inflicting significant harm on Israel over the past year, Israel launched a strike that ultimately served U.S. interests while leaving much of Iran’s power base untouched.

After significant rhetoric indicating that Israel would reshape the Middle East, Israel appeared to revert to a strategy based on deterrence, abandoning what could have been a truly transformative strike on Iran’s power structures. This has been seen as a successful effort by the U.S. to return Israel to a more reactive, strategically restrained posture.

Iran’s strategic blustering appeared to successfully manipulate the parameters of Israel's response, effectively dictating what Israel would avoid in its strike, which reinforces Iran's role in shaping the regional narrative.

Israel’s recent actions had created an impression of an uncontrollable force in the region. But by trading in this unpredictable strength for a more Western, deterrence-based strategy, Israel has allowed Iran to regain strategic footing.

Regionally, Israel’s adherence to U.S. preferences diminishes its standing as a “strong horse” in the Middle East, instead positioning it as a U.S. ally dependent on American approval for major actions. This weakens Israel’s appeal to Saudi Arabia and other nations seeking a powerful, independent ally.

By limiting its strike to align with American objectives, Israel may have compromised its chances for a meaningful peace deal with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, looking for an ally that can act independently of U.S. constraints, may now view Israel as less of a regional power.

In sum, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered this strike under immense pressure both domestically and from international forces, especially the United States. Leaked plans, thinly veiled threats, and the antagonistic demeanor from Israel's key ally, the U.S., presented challenges that will leave lasting wounds.

Israel, with a population less than a tenth of Iran’s, is engaged in an eight-front conflict with its arms supply gradually constricted by allies. International bodies that traditionally favor lawfare against Israel compound this, while Israel’s own defense establishment remains entrenched in a Western mentality that often overlooks the need for decisive victory.

Thus, Israel not only acted alone but with immense headwinds, even from allies. Netanyahu's resolve, despite these pressures, will solidify his place in history as a leader with the vision and commitment to defend Western civilization. Yet a clear-eyed analysis must confront the forces within and ultimately aim to deliver the strategic victory that Netanyahu alone seems prepared to recognize and pursue.

Originally published at JNS.org