Jack Point

Reasons for Both Optimism and Pessimism On the one hand, Eizenkot is right about one thing: Israel cannot bring down the Islamic Republic through airpower alone, even with full American military support. On the other hand, the Iranian regime has no intention of abandoning its nuclear and conventional military capabilities or its relationships with the so-called Axis of Resistance. As long as the regime survives, these will remain central pillars of its national security strategy. This leaves Israel and the United States facing a fundamental strategic dilemma. Military operations may damage Iranian capabilities, but they cannot eliminate them. And even another large-scale military campaign is unlikely to produce the political transformation in Tehran that some in Washington and Jerusalem continue to envision. The conclusion should be obvious: Israel's next government must fundamentally reassess its strategy toward Iran. The current approach is neither realistic nor sustainable. Worse, it risks trapping Israel, and potentially the United States, in an endless cycle of military confrontations without achieving a decisive strategic outcome. Before Washington and Jerusalem contemplate another attack, they should answer a basic question: What exactly is the strategic objective, and how would another war achieve what the previous two failed to accomplish? After two military campaigns, Iran's military capabilities have not been eliminated, and the Islamic Republic remains in power. At some point, policymakers must confront an uncomfortable question: Is there really a military solution to the Iranian challenge, or are we simply preparing for another war that will leave us confronting the same fundamental threats, at an even higher cost? Military force can be an instrument of strategy. It cannot substitute for one. #Iran #iranwar

Washington and Jerusalem Have Learned the Wrong Lessons from Their Wars with Iran I regret to say that neither the United States nor Israel appears to have learned the most important lessons from their previous military campaigns against Iran. Five realities must be understood before launching another war: 1. Iran will not surrender. Even a far more intense and destructive military campaign, including strikes against critical energy infrastructure, is unlikely to force Tehran into capitulation. The Iranian leadership will not simply abandon its nuclear ambitions or ballistic missile program under military pressure. If anything, another war could further strengthen its determination to preserve these capabilities. 2. Washington and Jerusalem cannot dictate the duration of the war. Anyone who believes another military campaign can be limited to a few days is making a dangerous assumption. Iran's response is likely to be extensive and violent, potentially forcing the United States and Israel to launch additional strikes. Once this cycle begins, controlling the pace, scope, and duration of the conflict will become extraordinarily difficult. 3. There is no military silver bullet. Striking Iranian infrastructure, including energy facilities, will not magically resolve the Iranian challenge. On the contrary, such attacks could trigger massive Iranian retaliation against energy infrastructure across the Middle East, with devastating regional and global consequences. 4. Iran will have surprises of its own. American and Israeli planners should not assume that Tehran will respond only with missiles and drones. Iran could attempt to disrupt undersea communications cables, conduct unconventional operations, or even launch limited ground operations against vulnerable targets in Kuwait or Bahrain. These are potential scenarios, not certainties, but they cannot be dismissed. Moreover, another confrontation could rapidly become a regional war, with Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias, and the Houthis likely to join the fighting in one form or another. The assumption that a war against Iran can remain geographically contained is deeply questionable. 5. The global economic consequences could be severe. Another major conflict would almost certainly put substantial upward pressure on global energy prices, particularly if Iranian energy facilities were targeted and Tehran retaliated against Gulf energy infrastructure. The consequences would extend far beyond the Middle East, affecting global markets, inflation, and economic stability. The bottom line is simple: Without a return to a diplomatic agreement, another military escalation in the Gulf increasingly appears difficult to avoid. But that does not mean another war would achieve its strategic objectives. Even a highly destructive campaign targeting Iran's most critical infrastructure may fail to produce meaningful strategic gains. Instead, the United States and Israel could find themselves trapped in another prolonged war of attrition, with no decisive outcome, mounting economic costs, and an increasingly unstable Middle East. The fundamental lesson of the previous campaigns should be clear: Military superiority does not automatically translate into strategic success. Before launching another war, Washington and Jerusalem must answer a basic question: What exactly can another military campaign achieve that the previous ones failed to accomplish, and what is the exit strategy if Iran refuses to back down? There is no kinetic solution to the Iranian challenge. Ignoring that reality risks repeating the same strategic mistakes, only at a much higher cost. #Iran #iran