Israeli Analysts Warn of Dangerous Escalation and Stalemate in War with Iran
Despite Tactical Gains, Experts Call for a Clear Exit Strategy as Fears of Prolonged War and Strategic Misjudgment Grow
Watan-Despite a reduction in Iranian missile fire in recent days, the mutual deterrence between Israel and Iran remains fragile, and the balance of power unstable. The key question persists: Does Iran possess enough missile capabilities—both in quantity and quality—to deter Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from pursuing an increasingly dangerous war, fueled in part by ambitions that many see as unattainable?
Netanyahu declared that Israel is moving toward “total victory,” adding a third war goal: beyond dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities, he now aims to eliminate the entire Axis of Resistance.
However, Israeli analysts continue to warn against the pursuit of overly ambitious goals that could drag Israel into a prolonged war of attrition without a viable exit plan.
Amos Harel: “Far from Achieving the Objective”
In an article titled “Far from the Goal”, Haaretz military analyst Amos Harel argued on Tuesday that even after four days of war, marked by significant damage in Iran and widespread destruction in Tel Aviv, none of the declared or undeclared objectives have been clearly achieved.
Harel views the strikes and assassinations as possibly laying the groundwork for Trump to intervene, hoping he might impose a harsher settlement on Tehran. Yet, Washington’s stance remains ambiguous, and endgame scenarios remain murky.
He warned that Israel appears to still be aiming for regime change in Iran, a goal he considers both unrealistic and risky. Harel questions whether Israel has set a rational strategic goal, or if it’s simply chasing wishful thinking.
Dangers of Regime Collapse and “Total Consensus”
Zvi Bar’el, Middle East editor at Haaretz, warned of the chaos that could follow regime collapse, noting that even within Iran, some anti-regime factions don’t seek democracy. Removing Ayatollah Khamenei, he argues, wouldn’t dismantle the whole system and could spark internal strife, potentially ushering in a more repressive regime.
Former MK and journalist Shelly Yachimovich, writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, criticized Israel’s herd mentality during wartime, in an op-ed titled “The Danger of Total Consensus.” She asked why no Israeli politicians had questioned the war, despite full awareness of Iran’s destructive capabilities, and lamented the lack of peaceful alternatives in Israeli discourse.
Conversely, Yedioth Ahronoth political commentator Ben-Dror Yemini defended the war as “legal and moral,” even calling for the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, if he insists on pursuing the nuclear path—reflecting deep divisions within the Israeli media.
War of Attrition and the Need for a Strategy
Retired General Yisrael Ziv, former head of the IDF Operations Directorate, supported the strike on Iran’s nuclear program as a justified national security move, writing in Channel 12. He described Iran as nearing a “ticking nuclear bomb”, using diplomatic stalling to retain near-threshold capabilities.
Ziv highlighted the success of the surprise factor early in the operation, including the assassination of 13 Iranian nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders. Yet he warned of the steep domestic cost—casualties, destruction, and public trauma.
He stressed that Israel’s resilience is finite, warning: “Iran is not a terrorist group. It’s a state.” Without a political exit strategy, he says, military gains could quickly erode into strategic losses.
The U.S. is the Key to Preserving Gains
Ziv argued that the key to sustaining Israel’s military gains is coordination with the U.S. He emphasized that all achievements against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure are time-sensitive, and without a strong follow-up agreement, Iran may accelerate its program beyond all expectations.
“There’s only one way to maintain the success,” he wrote, “close coordination with the U.S. must guide the next steps, not the boastful threats of Defense Minister Yisrael Katz.”
Exit Strategy Through Diplomacy
Ziv concluded that Israel’s only exit path lies in American-led diplomacy, warning that if Israel finds itself in a lengthy missile war, the psychological and material toll on citizens could undermine public support and strategic success.
He invoked the Second Lebanon War as a cautionary example and insisted:“Starting a war with Iran was a brave decision,but knowing how to end it wisely and decisively is even braver.”
