Former Israeli National Security Advisor: Three Strategic Mistakes Preventing Iran's Defeat

The intensity of internal debate in Israel has escalated as the military confrontation with Iran enters its second month, with voices of doubt emerging regarding the ability to strategically resolve the battle. Observers believe that the euphoria that accompanied the initial strikes has begun to recede in favor of growing concern about the war's outcomes and its long-term economic and security costs.

Reserve General Giora Eiland, former National Security Advisor, stated that Israel and the United States fell into a trap of miscalculations since the start of operations. Eiland explained that the first mistake is the wide gap between the declared goals of the war and the available means to achieve them, likening the situation to Napoleon's failed campaign in Russia.

Eiland pointed out that the second mistake lies in underestimating Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, where a naive belief prevailed that destroying the conventional fleet would incapacitate Tehran. He stressed that Iran possesses a massive arsenal of drones, naval mines, and missiles that can paralyze global shipping and exacerbate international crises.

The former advisor emphasized that the third miscalculation is the complete reliance on air power without engaging in a widespread ground campaign. He explained that the absence of ground operations, and the failure of attempts to recruit regional forces like the Kurds for this purpose, limited the results to material destruction without bringing about a change in the strategic awareness of the Iranian leadership.

Security sources confirmed that Iran has been preparing for this confrontation for four decades, building missile cities and fortified military bases deep underground. This preparation makes it difficult to eliminate its military capabilities through air attacks alone, which explains the continuation of the confrontation despite the intensity of Israeli and American fire.

In a related context, Eiland warned against being drawn into the Lebanon front without a clear vision for the end, considering that Israel has fallen into a war of attrition trap in the north. He noted that Hezbollah, which possesses a massive missile arsenal, is still capable of putting large areas under fire despite the strikes that targeted its strategic capabilities.

On the other hand, Tzachi Hanegbi, the resigned National Security Advisor, adopts a more optimistic view, calling for continued military pressure to break the balance of terror. Hanegbi believes that the United States' insistence on achieving a military resolution may eventually force Tehran to make fundamental concessions that were not on the table before the outbreak of the war.

Economically, researcher Benny Sabti believes that the Iranian regime faces the risk of imminent collapse due to declining oil revenues and frozen funds abroad. He explained that Tehran suffers from a deficit in providing basic and food needs for its citizens, which could lead to a popular uprising that overthrows the ruling authority under the weight of the living crisis.

Despite these expectations, analysts believe that betting on the collapse of the regime from within may be an uncertain gamble at present. The Iranian people, according to some interpretations, may rally around their leadership in the face of external threats, especially if clear, internationally supported political alternatives are not available.

Israeli circles fear damage to relations with Washington if the war fails to achieve its desired goals against the nuclear and missile programs. A narrative prevails in some American circles that Tel Aviv was the one that lured the United States into this direct and costly confrontation.

Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent force estimated at 80 to 400 warheads, but this force remains outside the calculations of the current conventional confrontation. Its economy, with a national output of 400 billion dollars, has also begun to feel the pressures of the ongoing war on multiple fronts including Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank.

The Israeli military establishment considers Iran to be the mastermind behind five hostile fronts surrounding it, making the confrontation with it an existential battle. However, field control in the West Bank through hundreds of military checkpoints consumes a large part of the army's and security forces' efforts.

The question remains about how to end this war, as Iran insists that any future negotiations must be limited to the nuclear file only. Tehran refuses to include its ballistic missile program or its regional influence in any agreement, which completely contradicts Israeli and American demands.

Ultimately, it seems that the true measure of success lies in strategic outcomes, not in the number of destroyed targets. If military and economic pressures fail to change Tehran's behavior, the region may remain stuck in a long spiral of attrition that does not serve the stability of any party.

Tactical successes do not amount to a strategic gain, and air strikes do not affect the enemy's convictions and sovereign decisions.