The US-Israeli war on Iran is founded on two huge mistakes

The US-Israeli War on Iran Rests on Two Critical Misjudgments

Two weeks into the clash between Israel and the U.S. against Iran, the conflict’s strategic goals rested on two pivotal errors. The first pertains to the American belief that the Iranian regime could be overthrown, while the second stems from Israel’s miscalculation of Hezbollah’s resilience and potential actions.

American Overestimation of Regime Vulnerability

Despite the initial bombardment, the Iranian government has not shown signs of collapse, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. This suggests that the belief in a swift overthrow of the regime was misplaced. Meanwhile, the Israeli leadership argued that the campaign would galvanize public dissent, creating a pathway for the Islamic Republic’s downfall.

“If we had not acted immediately, within a few months Iran’s industries of death would have become immune to any strike,” stated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his first televised address post-conflict.

Netanyahu emphasized that the attack aimed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, which he claimed posed a direct threat to Israel and the global order. He also asserted that the assault would empower the Iranian populace to challenge their government.

Israeli Miscalculation of Hezbollah’s Response

Israel’s assumption that Hezbollah would be incapacitated was proven incorrect. The Lebanese group has shown continued strength, capable of retaliating against Israeli operations. This was evident when Iran, despite the attacks, managed to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with his son Mojtaba Khamenei, demonstrating the regime’s internal continuity.

Moreover, Iran has since launched coordinated strikes against Gulf nations and Israel, inflicting significant damage and even targeting U.S. personnel. These actions have highlighted the country’s ability to retaliate, undermining the initial premise of the war.

“If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first,” said U.S. President Donald Trump, reflecting the perceived urgency of the campaign.

Though Trump and Netanyahu framed the operation as a preventive measure against nuclear conflict, the reality has shown that Iran’s capacity to threaten American interests remains intact. The failure to destabilize the regime has thus emerged as a major setback for U.S. influence in the region.

Initially, Israel claimed that the 12-day campaign had neutralized two existential risks: the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat posed by 20,000 ballistic missiles. However, recent developments indicate that these threats were not eradicated, and Iran has since demonstrated its ability to sustain operations despite heavy losses.

With demonstrations in Tehran and other cities failing to materialize as expected, and Iran maintaining its strategic foothold, the original assumptions have crumbled. The war, once envisioned as a catalyst for regime change, now appears to have strengthened Iran’s resolve, challenging the dominance of U.S. and Israeli powers in the Middle East.