Israeli Analysts Praise Netanyahu’s Iran War Decision but Warn of No Exit Strategy
While hailed as historic, Netanyahu’s war on Iran is raising deep concerns among Israeli experts over the lack of a clear military and political exit plan—risking a prolonged war of attrition.
Watan-Prominent Israeli commentators are hailing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to launch war on Iran as “historic,” while simultaneously issuing serious warnings about the lack of an exit strategy and the potential for a costly war of attrition.
Amos Harel, military analyst for Haaretz, called Israel’s opening strike on Iran “a stunning operational and intelligence success,” but warned that the country may struggle to endure a drawn-out conflict. “There is no clarity as to whether Netanyahu has a real exit plan,” he said.
Harel added: “The Iranian shock is fading, and retaliatory attacks on Israel’s home front are expected. In the face of a possible attrition war, Netanyahu will need Trump to convert operational gains into political ones.” He also attributed the decision to war partly to the weakness of Israel’s security establishment, questioning whether Israel can truly eliminate Iran’s critical nuclear components.
Barnea Warns: Netanyahu’s War Lacks Exit Strategy or Clear Path to Victory
Barnea expressed doubt about Israel’s ability to defeat Iran. Citing Uri Lubrani, Israel’s last ambassador to Iran before the Islamic Revolution, he noted: “He once claimed that with a few tens of millions of dollars, regime change in Iran was possible. The miracle never happened.” Barnea concluded: “If such a miracle occurs now, then we have truly won.”
Trump’s Goal vs. Netanyahu’s Problem
Barnea argued that Trump’s goal is clear: weaken Iran through war, then reopen negotiations under better terms. “Israel is the attack dog in this scenario. For Trump, the agreement is the exit point. But what’s Netanyahu’s?”
Nadav Eyal, a senior international affairs commentator at Yedioth Ahronoth, compared the 2025 war on Iran to Israel’s 1967 war against Egypt and Syria, pointing out similarities in surprise attacks on airports and airbases, which led to a swift six-day victory.
“Some generals will draw parallels, including the removal of existential threats,” Eyal said, adding—like others—that Trump holds the key to how this war ends.
Overconfidence Led to Iran’s Setback
Ronen Bergman, an intelligence affairs analyst for both Yedioth Ahronoth and The New York Times, pointed to Iranian overconfidence and misjudgment.
He reported that IRGC commanders believed Israel was merely bluffing to pressure Iran into nuclear concessions, only to be caught off guard as missiles eliminated senior figures on Friday morning.
One senior IRGC commander, just seconds before the bombing of Tehran, dismissed Israeli threats as psychological warfare: “It’s just theatrics. Israel is maneuvering.”
That miscalculation cost Iran dearly. Like other regional powers in recent years, Iran had deliberately ignored warning signs, and is now paying the price.
Bergman agreed with Israeli officials who believe Israel must avoid trying to do what has consistently failed—regime change in Iran or elsewhere from the outside.
Worst-Case Scenario: Regional War
Zvi Bar’el, Middle East affairs analyst for Haaretz, issued one of the most serious warnings.
He argued that if Israel pushes Iran into a corner, Tehran might start viewing the current war as existential—which could lead to a broad regional war.
Bar’el cautioned: “Escalation to this point would radically shift Iran’s response and plunge the region into a new level of danger.”
