The Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom has examined possible scenarios for a war against Iran amid escalating tensions and growing American military mobilisation in the region.
According to the paper, as the final components of the United States military build up continue to arrive, it has become evident that Iran is not, from a purely military standpoint, a rival capable of genuinely challenging Washington. While Tehran should not be underestimated, particularly in light of previous limited confrontations, especially in the missile domain, Iran possesses significant asymmetric capabilities. These include a vast ballistic arsenal and an extensive network of regional proxies.
The newspaper added that even before addressing the tactical dimensions of any potential strike and how it might be carried out, a realistic discussion must first focus on its objectives. What strategic transformation could a military operation against Iran realistically achieve? To answer this, the broader outlines of the decision confronting the American president must be examined.
A Broad Campaign to Change the Iranian Regime
Reports indicate that the US military is preparing for a prolonged campaign against Iran that could last weeks. This suggests that the American administration is seriously considering a move aimed at producing deep political change.
Such an objective is extremely difficult to achieve through conventional means, and certainly not through military force alone. Even senior American officials have publicly distanced themselves from this aim. Among them is Vice President J. D. Vance, who stated, according to the newspaper, that such a mission is “entrusted to the Iranian people” should they desire it.
The paper noted that this course of action faces significant obstacles. There is no unified and capable opposition within Iran ready to fill any resulting vacuum. At least none has publicly emerged, and potential movements may have been suppressed during recent demonstrations, including political arrests targeting reformist currents among government supporters.
Moreover, achieving regime change would likely require ground forces and prolonged efforts, a scenario that lacks both popular and political support in the United States, which still recalls the bloody decades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undermining the Regime from Within
The current tensions began with a wave of protests against the Iranian regime. A possible rationale for military action, therefore, could be to intensify internal pressure in order to weaken the system and push its opponents closer to what the newspaper described as the “finish line”.
However, this option presents serious challenges. According to the report, the Iranian leadership, particularly the Revolutionary Guard, does not possess an escape plan similar to that of Bashar al Assad in Syria or others.
This means that it would likely respond to any internal unrest with maximum force, as allegedly demonstrated by the killing of thousands of protesters in January.
Even if pressure were to succeed, the most probable outcome would not necessarily be democratic transition. Instead, internal chaos could push Iran towards civil war, with severe regional and global consequences. Therefore, if the United States were to pursue this path, it would need a systematic plan to move rapidly from chaos to stability in order to safeguard its own interests and those of its regional allies.
Targeting Nuclear Facilities
Senior officials within the administration repeatedly stress that the ultimate goal is to prevent the Ayatollah regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. As such, there remains the possibility of a strike similar to that of June, focusing on nuclear infrastructure and sites, to the extent that they remain intact or have been restored since what was described as the Twelve Day War.
Here, according to the newspaper, lies a profound challenge. Military strikes cannot erase scientific knowledge or human capital. Nor can anyone guarantee the identification and destruction of all of Iran’s accumulated enriched uranium stockpiles gathered over the years.
As seen following the June war, and as reflected in satellite imagery circulated since then, Tehran, if it emerges from this crisis intact, may attempt to revive the project with greater determination and fewer restraints stemming from its aversion to military confrontation.
Destroying Iran’s Missile Project
Iranian missiles constitute the central pillar of its deterrence and defence capabilities. The Islamic Republic has invested its most significant resources in this programme, viewing it as the cornerstone of deterrence against superior conventional forces.
According to Israel Hayom, a broad campaign could inflict severe damage on missile stockpiles and production infrastructure, potentially removing, at least temporarily, this serious threat.
However, even after sustaining heavy losses, Tehran would likely prioritise restoring these capabilities. The outcome might amount only to a temporary setback rather than total elimination.
The difficulty of dismantling a ballistic project was demonstrated, according to the newspaper, in Israeli and American operations against the Houthis, whose capabilities rely heavily on Iranian support.
Imposing Negotiations on Favourable Terms
Israel Hayom stated that former President Donald Trump’s preferred option is not necessarily war, but rather an agreement. He has expressed this position repeatedly, and recent direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran indicate that this option remains viable. The logic suggests that sufficient military pressure could compel Tehran to accept terms more favourable than those it previously rejected.
Previous conflicts demonstrate that the Iranian leadership may choose to absorb a blow rather than surrender, which it views as an existential threat under internal pressure. The regime may calculate that time is on its side, and that prolonging the conflict would increase political pressure within Washington to abandon the campaign, as occurred during Trump’s campaign against the Houthis, which ended within months without achieving tangible results.
Eliminating Khamenei
Khamenei is undeniably the central figure within the Iranian system. To some extent, the newspaper suggests, his firm refusal to accept certain conditions in negotiations with the United States has been a key driver behind the deterioration of stability within the Ayatollah regime.
Yet the report cautions that so called decapitation strikes often produce unpredictable consequences. Iran’s political system is institutional rather than purely personal. There is no guarantee that removing Khamenei would moderate Iranian policy. On the contrary, it could intensify it.
Such a step could provoke a powerful reaction from Iran and its regional proxies, given the Supreme Ayatollah’s religious standing, and could draw the United States into a far broader campaign than originally planned.
The newspaper concluded that there is no doubt regarding American military superiority in direct confrontation. However, military superiority does not necessarily translate into strategic priority. For the first time in decades, the United States faces the possibility of direct war against a state rather than a proxy conflict. This reality requires leaders to define their objectives in advance.
In conclusion, the paper stated that none of the reviewed options is simple. Each carries implications that Washington may not be prepared to manage. Before embarking on any course of action, decision makers must answer one fundamental question: what does success look like, and at what cost?
