A Line to Break the Cycle

What Israel has begun bears little resemblance to anything it has done before. For decades, the prospect of direct action against Iran was viewed as a remote and almost theoretical scenario, reserved for a distant breaking point that never seemed to arrive. That moment has now arrived, not as an isolated development but as the inexorable consequence of a historical buildup that could no longer be postponed. The tactical operation carried out by Israel on Persian soil is actively reshaping reality.Iran is not the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. It is not the radical Islamic militia Hezbollah. Nor is it one of the peripheral extensions that Iran has armed, financed, and indoctrinated from the shadows for years. The Islamic so-called “Republic” of Iran is a state recognized by the international community, with a formal military structure, organized defense networks, established industrial capacity, and a geopolitical weight that demands caution, even from its most determined enemies.

And yet, in just a matter of days, the Israeli Air Force has managed to conduct long-range operations that penetrated hostile sovereign airspace, evaded deeply integrated defense systems, and redefined the strategic coordinates of the entire region. This was not an improvised raid. It revealed the execution of a plan meticulously developed over the years, designed in silence and with strategic discipline, aimed at deterrence and the establishment of inviolable red lines, with two clear objectives: dismantling Iran’s nuclear capability and neutralizing its missile arsenal.

As if that were not enough, the entire world has watched with astonishment the extraordinary performance of the Israel Defense Forces, whose operational effectiveness, with the help of the Almighty, has exceeded any reasonable expectation. Following Israel’s preventive strike, the Iranian regime launched over 520 ballistic missiles, deliberately aimed at civilian populations in Israeli cities. Of all the projectiles fired, only 25 struck non-military targets. Israeli defense systems successfully intercepted the rest. Added to this were more than 1,200 suicide drones launched by the ayatollahs. Not a single one reached Israeli soil, as all were neutralized in the air through flawless tactical execution.

From a military standpoint, the operational achievement of these days is immeasurable. Not only in terms of the targets destroyed but also for the deterrent message sent to every regional proxy feeding off the illusion of a cornered and static Israel. What began on October 7 as an attempt to fracture the soul of Israeli society has evolved into a meticulously calibrated offensive, directed at dismantling the Iranian project’s appendages, its command center, its ideological axis, and its territorial ambition.

Despite this, no reasonable person would claim that the conflict is over. Quite the opposite, it is only now entering its most delicate phase. Every military decision from this point forward must be calculated with absolute strategic precision to ensure that Israel’s tactical superiority does not turn, through excessive initiative, into an unnecessary operational exposure.

Faced with an advantage such as Israel’s current position, it is easy to be drawn into the logic of momentum or the temptation to extend superiority until the enemy collapses. Yet, a smart war is not won by accumulating destruction, but by ensuring that each strike brings about a lasting change in the enemy’s behavior. Some partial results are already visible. However, the central question is not whether operational objectives are being met, but whether Iran has understood the message and is willing, or not, to reconfigure its national strategy.

Nevertheless, the decision to shift course does not belong to Israel. It is not among the goals of this campaign to overthrow an Islamist regime that has made hostility a structural constant of its foreign policy. That regime now stands before a historical crossroads if it wishes to preserve itself. It can either persist in its pursuit of regional hegemony backed by nuclear cover or accept that the cost of doing so has surpassed the threshold of sustainability. Recent history offers several precedents of failed states that, when faced with the threat of collapse, chose to change course to survive. There are also examples of the opposite. The Iranian dilemma remains unresolved, and no analytical model can predict its outcome with certainty. Therefore, Israel’s immediate objective cannot be a theatrical victory, nor a peace agreement on paper. It must be the consolidation of a new equilibrium in which Iran, regardless of its governing system, understands that its margins for maneuver are no longer unlimited and never will be again.

Even if progress is made in that direction, the road ahead is far from clear. No one knows who will succeed the current leadership in Tehran, or what doctrine will accompany that succession. There is no certainty about how much of Iran’s nuclear program has been effectively dismantled. Intelligence in such contexts is, by definition, partial, evolving, and of course, classified. The most sensitive sites may have been emptied, relocated, or even rebuilt. No one should fall into the illusion that a single operation, or even several brilliant ones, can resolve a challenge that has been decades in the making.

In light of what has taken place, what is truly at stake, beyond the immediate military plane, is the position Israel will come to occupy in the unavoidable regional realignment. The Middle East is watching closely. Saudi Arabia, for instance, follows the developments from a distance and continues its strategic calculations. Its energy stability, alliance policy, and modernization agenda require that Iran not retain the ability to impose sustained geopolitical blackmail. In that context, it is plausible to consider that, if Israel demonstrates real capacity to contain, deter, and eventually alter the nature of the Iranian regime, it may cease to be seen as a problematic actor and instead become an indispensable partner. Although such a development is not part of the operation’s immediate objective, it would not be unreasonable to view it as an unexpected yet valuable possibility.

Meanwhile, other Persian Gulf actors, although discreet, have been privileged witnesses to the conflict. Their support, though silent, is significant, yet also tinged with apprehension. They know that a desperate reaction from the Iranian regime could directly impact their infrastructure. The Arab world has not forgotten the 2019 attacks, when Iranian drones and missiles paralyzed half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production within hours, without anyone stopping them. Nor have they forgotten that in the same year, two oil tankers, one Japanese and one Norwegian, were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. Today, the moderate Sunni countries should be able to trust that Israel will not repeat a pattern of containment without resolution. Israel, for its part, should act accordingly. Collectively, the region hopes that this time the situation will reach the inflection point necessary to redefine the rules of the Middle East.

None of this is meant to suggest that the war is being won. In armed conflict, everyone loses. However, it does mean that the scenario has changed dramatically. Iran can no longer assume that its territory is untouchable. It can no longer sustain the fiction that its nuclear program advances under the shadow of impunity. Those in the region who once dreamed of unlimited support from the ayatollahs are beginning to rethink their plans with a mixture of uncertainty and fear. That alone does not eliminate the threat, but it does establish a new framework in which decisions are no longer dictated by fear, but rather by possibility.

Perhaps, in the future, these days will be remembered as the moment when Israel stopped adapting to the chaos of the Middle East and began to redefine it. What occurred was not a response to the present. It was a warning aimed at the future. No regime that projects destruction upon Israel will continue doing so without consequence. The message was clear, loud, direct, and perfectly understood across the region. The only democracy in the Middle East has abandoned the language of containment and drawn a line in fire. Whoever crosses it will pay the price. Only when that certainty is firmly embedded at the core of the regional equation can true stability begin to take shape, not as the product of naïve reconciliation, but as the result of a clear and unwavering understanding that Israel will never surrender its right to determine the moment, the manner, and the scope of its defense.