STRATEGIC OVERVIEW AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

The Israeli government recently held a meeting to discuss the possibility of launching an attack on Iran. While no decision has been made, officials clarified that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the authority to order an attack at any time, with the cabinet notified by phone. However, the outcome of the conflict won’t be determined by which side inflicts more destruction, but by who can endure a prolonged war.

When comparing the two countries, Iran holds significant advantages in both population and geography. Iran’s population is nearly 100 times that of Israel, and its landmass is 75 times larger. Iran faces no existential threats from its neighbors, while Israel is surrounded by nations that either harbor hostility or remain quiet, thanks in part to billions of dollars in American support. In this context, Israel has initiated a war of attrition against Iran.

Iran’s resilience was demonstrated during its eight-year war with Iraq, which started shortly after the 1979 revolution. Despite being under-resourced and isolated, Iran managed to prevent Iraq from achieving its objectives. Iraq, backed by both Arab states and the West, was unable to reclaim its claimed territories. Though the war ended in a stalemate, it showed that Iran could endure a prolonged conflict, even with limited resources.

For Israel to achieve complete victory, it would need to target five critical Iranian sites to prevent the country from becoming a nuclear power in the future. Such a strategy could potentially lead to another revolution in Iran, opening the door for Western powers to install a regime more aligned with their interests.

ISRAEL’S STRATEGIC TARGETS AND IRANIAN DEFENSES:

The first critical target for Israel would be Iran’s nuclear facility in Fordow, the most advanced nuclear site in the country. The facility, located outside Qom, is constructed 300 feet beneath solid mountains, making it difficult to destroy. Israel’s current arsenal, including 5,000-pound American bunker-buster bombs, is insufficient to penetrate such depths. To neutralize Fordow, Israel would need the US military’s GBU-57, a deep-penetration guided bomb. However, the US has not transferred this weapon to any country, including Israel. Tel Aviv hopes a future administration under former president Donald Trump might be more willing to provide the necessary assistance.

The second critical site is the Natanz enrichment plant, Iran’s vast uranium enrichment facility. Destroying Natanz would set Iran’s nuclear program back significantly. Other key targets include the Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Arak heavy water reactor, and the Parchin military complex. While these sites are not as deeply buried as Fordow, they are heavily defended. Iran’s air defense systems include Russia’s S-300, the domestically developed Bavar-373, and the mobile Raad system, all of which provide a reasonably effective defense network. Behind these defenses, Iran retains a strong counter-attack capability, further complicating any potential Israeli strike.

ISRAEL’S VULNERABILITIES AND REGIONAL DYNAMICS:

Israel has two main options for neutralizing Iran’s nuclear ambitions: cyberattacks or conventional military strikes, with the latter likely requiring U.S. assistance. However, Iran has identified four potential Israeli targets for retaliation. Israel’s biggest vulnerability lies in its reliance on natural gas, which powers 70% of its electricity. Gas from the Tamar and Leviathan fields in the Mediterranean Sea is crucial for the country’s energy needs. These fields, protected by Israeli and American naval forces, would be prime targets for Iran.

Other potential Iranian targets include Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, a critical hub for Israel’s aviation industry; Israel’s gas export infrastructure in Haifa, which supports exports to Jordan and Egypt; and Israel’s nuclear and military facilities in the Negev Desert, which hold strategic significance.

IRAN’S STRATEGIC PATIENCE VS. ISRAEL’S TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY: 

The enduring factor in this conflict is the ability to sustain a long-term war. Iran has a slight edge over Israel due to its larger population and size. However, Israel’s technological superiority and espionage capabilities far surpass Iran’s. If Iran engages in a protracted conflict, even launching a few missiles daily, it could disrupt Israeli life significantly. The cost to Israel, both financially and psychologically, would be immense.

Meanwhile, the leadership in both Iran and Israel show no signs of seeking peace. The Arab nations, while seeking to prevent an escalation, understand that without resolving the Palestinian issue, they cannot normalize relations with Israel or prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Two factors have delayed an Israeli attack on Iran: first, the Arab countries have pressured the US to prevent an Israeli strike that could threaten regional stability and their own economic security. Second, logistical challenges such as refueling aircraft have complicated Israel’s ability to strike Iranian targets. Israel has sought permission from Azerbaijan to use its airbases for refueling, but Azerbaijan has refused.

The region appears to be edging closer to conflict, with global economic consequences looming. If war breaks out, disruptions in oil supplies could destabilize international markets, reshaping geopolitical alliances and impacting the global economy for years to come.