Israel’s surprise attack on Friday, June 13, dealt heavy blows to Iran, including the assassination of several top military commanders and nuclear scientists, and the targeting of nuclear and military sites. With Iran’s radar defense systems hacked, the Israeli Air Force effectively dominated Iranian airspace and successfully struck many pre-selected targets.
It took hours for the Islamic Republic to issue its first responses. That night, a few missiles were launched from Iran, inflicting damage on Israel—but this was only the beginning. On the second day, while Israeli strikes continued, Iran’s air defense gradually regrouped and succeeded in downing two F-35 fighter jets and several Israeli drones. On the second and third nights, Iran launched more extensive missile attacks on Israel. Advanced ballistic and hypersonic missiles, including the Fateh, Sejjil, Shahab-3, Khorramshahr, and Kheibarshekan, were introduced. Many bypassed Israel’s Iron Dome, spreading fear throughout the country. The situation shifted, and images of Iranian missile strikes and destruction in Israeli cities dominated global media.
Gradually, the balance of power tilted in Iran’s favor as all Israeli cities were subjected to a wide variety of missile strikes. Nonetheless, given the devastation experienced by both sides, a ceasefire in the coming days is not out of the question. Should such a ceasefire materialize, Israel will emerge as the loser. Though Iran’s nuclear and military industries have sustained serious damage, the country will emerge from this war in a stronger position. First, the experience of an all-out missile, drone, and electronic war will place Iran on a much higher military footing. No other country has undergone such a conflict. Second, in any future negotiations, US will have exhausted one of its strongest leverage points—the threat of military attack—leaving sanctions as the only remaining tool. Moreover, given that Iran’s nuclear expertise is indigenous, the attack may prompt Iran to withdraw from the NPT and continue higher-level enrichment in more secure facilities.
Now that the dust has settled from Israel’s surprise assault and Iran’s decisive response has shifted the balance, the key question is: what strategic calculations led Israel into this war, and what missteps did Netanyahu make?
1. Miscalculation One: Expecting a Popular Uprising Against the Islamic Republic
Israel anticipated that air raids would drive discontented Iranians into the streets to riot and welcome Israeli strikes with flowers and sweets. That never happened. Contrary to the expectations of pro-war media and allies, even markets and government offices remained open. There were no reports of looting or attacks on government facilities; instead, public cooperation and support for the state increased.
Although no formal polling has been conducted, field evidence suggests that public support for the Islamic Republic has reached its highest level in the past 30–40 years. This unexpected consensus is a valuable asset that could alter the course of war and, if properly harnessed, link the regime to its people—paving the way for progress in economic, political, and cultural arenas. It is natural for a population to rally around its government in the face of foreign aggression—especially when the attacker is Israel, whose human rights abuses in Gaza are widely known. But Israeli decision-makers and advisors were operating in a different intellectual framework before the war.
2. Miscalculation Two: Underestimating Iran’s Military Capabilities
Israel’s surprise attack inflicted severe damage on Iran’s military leadership, defense industries, and stockpiles of drones, missiles, and radar systems. Yet it failed to cripple Iran’s defensive infrastructure. Within days, Iran launched roughly 2,000 missiles and drones at Israel. It is astonishing that Israeli leaders failed to learn from the war in Yemen. Despite weeks of aerial bombardment by the U.S., Israel, and European powers, Yemen never capitulated. For months, Yemen has launched missile attacks on Israel. It is naïve to think a few days of Israeli airstrikes could subdue a country like Iran—larger, more populous, mountainous, industrialized, and with decades of missile development.
No regime collapses from air strikes alone unless ground forces engage in a land war. This is unthinkable for Israel and the U.S. in the case of Iran. No land-based operations have occurred; not a single shot has been fired, and no Iranian soldier or tank has been damaged. Israel and the U.S. share no border with Iran. Any ground assault would be logistically implausible and strategically doomed. For Israel, which has failed to conquer even the small and besieged Gaza Strip, an invasion of Iran is inconceivable—even in dreams.
3. Miscalculation Three: Ignoring Regional and Global Perceptions of Israel
Given the events in Gaza, regional and global public opinion, as well as that of many Middle Eastern governments, did not support Israeli aggression against Iran. Rather than rallying behind Israel, many nations condemned the attack, with some—like Pakistan—openly supporting Iran. Because Iran was engaged in negotiations at the time and Israel launched the initial strike, other nations naturally sympathized with Iran and feared they could be next.
Furthermore, due to the Islamic Republic’s role in balancing East and West, a direct U.S.-Iran war risks escalating into World War III. China, Russia, and virtually all Islamic nations have an interest in preventing Iran’s defeat. Particularly since Iran was negotiating with the U.S. when Israel, with American backing, launched its offensive, Israel’s actions lack the legitimacy of self-defense and appear as outright aggression.
4. Miscalculation Four: Overlooking Israel’s Vulnerabilities
Israel is 1/80th the size of Iran. Sixty percent of its land is uninhabited desert (the Negev), while more than 90% of the population lives in just 10% of its territory—flat, densely populated areas highly vulnerable to missile attacks. This is Israel’s primary weakness.
Moreover, its Iron Dome system has seen little improvement and remains susceptible to penetration. While effective against Hamas and Hezbollah, the Iron Dome and Israeli shelters are ill-equipped to withstand Iran’s massive and advanced missiles. While life continues normally in Iran and Israeli strikes on select locations barely disrupt daily routines, Iranian missile attacks have rendered daily life in Israel unbearable.
5. Miscalculation Five: Ignoring the Golden Rule—The Initiator of War Always Loses
Over the past century, the initiators of major wars have typically regretted or lost their campaigns. Germany, Japan, and Italy started WWII and were defeated. The U.S. started the Vietnam War and failed. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and retreated empty-handed. Iraq invaded Iran and lost. The U.S. attacked Iraq, toppled Saddam, but spent trillions and ultimately handed influence in Iraq to Iran. Israel attacked southern Lebanon, only to retreat and inadvertently help create Hezbollah. Serbia attacked Bosnia and Croatia and was disgraced. Saudi Arabia attacked Yemen and failed.
Most recently, on October 7, 2023, Hamas and Hezbollah attacked Israel—Hamas was nearly obliterated, and Hezbollah severely weakened. Russia invaded Ukraine and is clearly regretful. Now, Israel has attacked Iran while the Islamic Republic was engaged in serious negotiations with the U.S.
Why do initiators so often lose? As noted above, several factors are at play. In Israel’s case, Iranian society has rallied around its government due to the perceived threat from Netanyahu and Trump. Global and regional powers, fearing Israel’s aggression, overtly and covertly support the Islamic Republic. Meanwhile, the Israeli public will soon protest the costs of a prolonged war. As the aggressor, Israel will gradually lose moral and human legitimacy. The fact that Iran was negotiating when attacked not only contributed to its surprise but also nullified any justification for Israel’s actions.
Imagine if Iran had refused to negotiate and then come under attack. That refusal might have divided the nation and undermined its wartime unity. But because Iran pursued diplomacy, public consensus was easier to achieve, and domestic unity has been a major strategic advantage.
