Israel’s strike on Iran: A missed shot at impact

Israel’s strike against Iran on October 25 marks a pivotal point in the ongoing tit-for-tat conflict between the Jewish State and the Islamic Republic. This was no mere border skirmish but a bold and deeply strategic move aimed at hitting Iranian soil itself, a rare event and Israel’s first official deep penetration into Iran’s territory. The attack was a retaliation against Iran’s recent provocations, notably the October 1 actions that intensified hostilities and directly challenged Israel’s patience. The escalation came after evidence surfaced of Iran’s direct logistical support to proxy groups threatening Israel from Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria in addition to Tehran’s known and explicit involvement in destabilizing maneuvers across the region. This recent strike, however, was not merely a reaction; it was a clear message to Tehran. But was the message potent enough?

What Israel Targeted

Israel’s October 25 operation targeted several high-value military installations, aiming to dent Iran’s offensive capabilities. Among the sites hit were ballistic missile facilities—key infrastructure in Iran’s regional power projection. Israel also struck drone launchpads, critical assets in Tehran’s network of unmanned aerial warfare that have posed increasing threats to Israeli interests and allies in the region. Additionally, the S-400 air defense systems, Russia-supplied and crucial to Iran’s ability to defend against airborne threats, were included in the targeted strikes. These installations represented a robust segment of Iran’s offensive and defensive military framework, but the choice of these targets left deeper vulnerabilities untouched.

A PR Stunt Too Soft on Real Threats

While the October 25 strike was significant, it ultimately falls short. The targets, while substantial, did not address the core threats that Israel faces from Tehran. The decision to bypass Iran’s nuclear facilities—arguably the centerpiece of the nation’s most existential threat to Israel—signals an overly cautious approach. These nuclear sites, which continue their steady march toward weapons capability, remain the regime’s prized assets. Targeting these sites could have dealt a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, effectively halting or significantly delaying progress.

Moreover, Israel neglected to hit Iran’s oil infrastructure, which funds much of the regime’s military operations, particularly those executed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Hitting oil production would not only have stunted Iran’s economic power but would have struck at the core financial lifeline of the IRGC, making it a critical point of pressure against both the regime and its proxy forces. This measured approach, choosing tactical military installations over strategic economic targets, makes the October 25 strike appear less of a tactical operation and more of a PR maneuver meant to project strength without risking serious fallout. In war, showing restraint can sometimes backfire.

Shifting the Overton Window

This strike could have further expanded the Overton window in Israel’s favor, setting new norms for acceptable self-defense measures. By opting for moderate targets, Israel’s leadership missed an opportunity to shift international perspectives on preemptive strikes as not just justified, but necessary. A stronger approach could have paved the way for more forceful actions in the future, particularly if Iran’s nuclear developments continue unabated. Instead, this “half-measure” reinforces a ceiling on Israel’s options, when a more assertive action could have opened the door for global support—or at least tolerance—of escalated measures against Iran.

The U.S. Factor: Future Hurdles Under a Harris Administration

While the situation currently allows Israel some strategic latitude, future U.S. leadership could drastically change the equation. Albeit a prospect less likely by the day, if Kamala Harris assumes the presidency, her administration would likely present a formidable obstacle to resolute action against Iran. Harris has shown less alignment with Zionist interests, and her close circle includes several figures sympathetic to Islamist movements, casting doubt on her commitment to backing Israel’s hardline policies.

A Harris administration would likely prioritize diplomatic engagement with Iran over military pressure, setting up a potentially adversarial relationship with Israeli interests. This approach would not only dilute U.S. support for robust Israeli action but could actively discourage or even obstruct Israeli defense initiatives against Tehran. With Harris at the helm, Israel may find itself lacking a crucial ally in its existential struggle against Iranian aggression, constrained by an administration more focused on conciliation than decisive action.

Go the Whole Nine Yards or Risk Reversal

In times of conflict, hesitation is a luxury that nations cannot afford. Israel’s October 25 strike, while impactful, stops short of what the moment demanded. As the old saying goes, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” If Israel is to navigate the perilous waters of Middle Eastern geopolitics, it must commit fully to its objectives and avoid partial measures. True security demands that we go the whole nine yards, for in war, fortune favors the bold—and hesitation can mean the difference between deterrence and disaster.