Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pursuit of a decisive military victory over Iran could end in a catastrophe for Israel itself, according to Israeli general and military analyst Yitzhak Brik, who has warned that another attack on Tehran could trigger economic collapse, devastating retaliation and an unprecedented erosion of Israel’s national security.
In a sharply critical article published in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, Brik challenged Netanyahu’s belief that destroying Iran’s political leadership could deliver a final victory, describing the strategy as a dangerous illusion fundamentally disconnected from military and geopolitical reality.
His warning goes far beyond the immediate consequences of another exchange of missiles. Brik argues that a renewed confrontation could expose Israel to a combination of threats its military, economy and political leadership are ill-equipped to withstand.
At the centre of his criticism is a question Netanyahu has yet to convincingly answer: What would victory over Iran actually look like, and does Israel possess the means to achieve it?
Netanyahu’s Promise of Total Victory Is Militarily Impossible, Brik Warns
Brik took direct aim at Netanyahu’s recent declarations that eliminating Iran’s governing system represents the only path towards complete victory, along with his instructions to the Israeli military to defeat Iran “decisively”.
According to the Israeli general, such ambitions disregard the fundamental limitations of air power.
He argued that an ideological, deeply entrenched political system cannot be overthrown through aerial bombardment alone, regardless of the intensity or technological sophistication of the attacks.
Defeating a regional power of Iran’s size, geographical complexity and military depth would require extensive ground manoeuvres and a large-scale invasion, an operation Israel does not possess the capability to undertake.
Brik also dismissed the possibility that Washington would contemplate such a military undertaking.
The alternative scenario, in which military strikes somehow encourage an organised popular commando movement or domestic uprising capable of overthrowing Iran’s government, is equally unrealistic, he argued.
In his assessment, expectations of an internal Iranian rebellion have faded into little more than an unsupported fantasy.
This leaves Netanyahu’s strategy facing a fundamental contradiction: Israel may possess the capability to strike Iranian targets, but that does not mean it can achieve the political outcome its leadership continues to promise.
A War With Iran Could Throw the Global Economy Into Chaos
The consequences of another Israeli attack would not necessarily remain confined to the battlefield.
Brik warned that Iranian retaliation against strategic assets across the Gulf could paralyse vital international shipping and communications networks, triggering an economic crisis extending far beyond the Middle East.
He pointed specifically to the possibility of renewed blockades affecting the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, two strategically important waterways for international trade and energy transportation.
Combined with Iranian threats to sabotage undersea communications cables connecting the Gulf to the wider world, such disruptions could produce global economic chaos.
Fuel and energy prices would rise sharply, Brik predicted, pushing economies across Europe and Asia into a crisis for which Israel would be blamed.
His assessment challenges the assumption that another confrontation could be conducted as a geographically contained military operation.
Instead, the economic consequences could reach countries with no direct involvement in the fighting, potentially increasing international pressure on Israel as governments confront the financial repercussions.
Iran’s Retaliation Could Overwhelm Israel’s Critical Infrastructure
Brik’s most immediate warning concerns the scale of retaliation Israel could face if Netanyahu proceeds with another attack.
Rather than treating Iranian retaliation as a manageable exchange of missiles, he described a scenario involving coordinated attacks from several directions.
“Tehran will use all its military capabilities at maximum strength,” Brik warned.
He predicted that Iran, coordinating with Hezbollah, Shia armed groups in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen, could unleash extensive barrages of missiles and drones against Israel.
The targets, he argued, would extend well beyond military installations.
Power generation facilities, desalination plants, air force bases and other strategic civilian and military infrastructure could face direct attacks.
Brik warned that the destruction inflicted on major population centres could be catastrophic.
Such a scenario would challenge Israel’s ability to maintain essential civilian services while simultaneously sustaining military operations.
The danger, in Brik’s assessment, lies not simply in the number of incoming projectiles but in their potential concentration against infrastructure on which both the Israeli economy and military depend.
‘Trump Uses Israel as a Pawn’: The Risk of Diplomatic Abandonment
Military destruction is only one part of the danger Brik believes Netanyahu is overlooking.
He also warned that another confrontation with Iran could deepen Israel’s international isolation at a time when its diplomatic standing is already under severe pressure.
According to Brik, Israel has lost much of its political credibility in Europe, while the administration of US President Donald Trump operates according to narrowly defined American interests rather than unconditional commitments to Israel.
“Trump uses Israel as a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard,” Brik argued.
He warned that when Israel faces a decisive crisis, its leadership could discover that Washington is unwilling to provide either the practical assistance or the diplomatic protection it expects.
Brik also pointed to European economic sanctions against Israel, arguing that further punitive measures could deepen the country’s vulnerability.
His criticism reflects a broader concern about Israel’s dependence on external political and military support.
Netanyahu’s calculations, Brik suggested, risk assuming that American backing will remain available regardless of the scale or consequences of Israeli military action.
Yet Washington’s strategic priorities may diverge sharply from Israel’s if a confrontation threatens wider American interests.
Israel’s Missile Defence Systems Cannot Sustain an Endless War
Another central weakness identified by Brik is the limited endurance of Israel’s multilayered air defence network.
Systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow provide Israel with substantial defensive capabilities, but their interceptor supplies are finite.
Brik warned that a prolonged confrontation involving repeated missile barrages from multiple directions could critically deplete those reserves.
The production of advanced interceptor missiles, he explained, cannot immediately compensate for the speed at which they would be consumed during sustained attacks.
This creates a dangerous imbalance between the duration of a potential war and Israel’s capacity to maintain its defensive shield.
The longer the confrontation continues, the greater the strain on systems designed to protect military facilities, strategic infrastructure and densely populated areas.
Brik’s warning suggests that Israel’s technological advantages, frequently presented as evidence of its military superiority, could gradually lose effectiveness through sustained attrition.
In such circumstances, the ability to intercept incoming threats would become increasingly dependent on dwindling stocks of equipment that cannot be rapidly replenished.
The Threat of Internal Exhaustion and Structural Collapse
Brik also questioned whether Israeli society and its armed forces possess the endurance required for another prolonged regional war.
He warned that the continuous mobilisation of reservists, mounting economic damage and the physical and psychological exhaustion of soldiers could combine to produce a severe internal crisis.
The civilian population, already exposed to the pressures of sustained military confrontation, would face further disruption as attacks threaten essential infrastructure and economic activity.
Over time, these pressures could push Israeli society towards what Brik described as a point of structural collapse.
His assessment also raised questions about the readiness of Israel’s ground forces.
According to Brik, the Israeli military is not currently prepared for an expanded combat scenario involving infiltration operations or a ground invasion.
This weakness becomes particularly consequential if a confrontation with Iran develops into a wider regional war requiring Israel to respond to simultaneous threats across multiple fronts.
Rather than delivering the decisive victory envisioned by Netanyahu, Brik warned, prolonged fighting could progressively undermine the military, economic and social foundations Israel relies upon for its security.
Another Strike Could Weaken Israel Rather Than Iran
Brik concluded his assessment with a direct rejection of Netanyahu’s central strategic argument.
“The concept adopted by Benjamin Netanyahu, according to which another military strike against Iran will lead to final victory, is a false and dangerous proposition,” he wrote.
“A new attack will not bring down the Ayatollah’s regime, but it could destabilise the foundations of Israel’s national security, economy and international standing.”
The warning exposes the central dilemma underlying Netanyahu’s push for another military confrontation.
Even if Israel succeeds in inflicting substantial damage on Iranian military facilities, Brik argues that such destruction would not necessarily translate into regime change or a decisive strategic victory.
Instead, another attack could provoke a regional confrontation whose consequences Israel is neither militarily prepared nor economically equipped to absorb.
For Brik, the most dangerous illusion is not that Iran can retaliate, but that Israel can initiate another major war and assume it will emerge stronger.
