Israel’s strategic offensive against Iran: From deterrence to destabilisation
The conflict between Israel and Iran has long been simmering in West Asia. However, what we are now witnessing is not just another round in their shadow war—it is a strategic offensive that marks a surprising shift in Israel’s strategic doctrine, intent, and has much broader implications. The Israeli attack against Iran has evolved into something far more than a series of defensive airstrikes. It is a multidimensional operation aimed at systematically degrading Iran’s capabilities across military, economic, and cognitive spheres.
This is not deterrence anymore. It is a transformation in every domain.
From red lines to realignment
Israel’s long-standing “red line” has been Iran’s nuclear program. For over a decade, Israeli leadership—across party lines—has warned that a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat. The first phase of this offensive began predictably: surgical strikes on nuclear infrastructure on June 13. While reminiscent of past Israeli operations such as the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing in Iraq or the 2007 strike on Syria’s al-Kibar facility, this round had a broader signaling function.
The strikes were meant not just to disable nuclear development but to remind the global community—and Tehran—that Israel will not wait for international consensus when it comes to its national security and its dominance in the region. The doctrine here is clear: act before a threat becomes unmanageable. It is a wonderful example of preventive war, justified under the logic of existential risk.
However, unlike previous operations, this was only the beginning.
Opening the skies: suppressing Iranian defenses
The second phase of the offensive moved beyond isolated targets. Israeli forces took aim at Iran’s Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS), radar stations, and missile sites. This was a strategic necessity. Someone can not run extended air campaigns without air superiority—and Israel certainly can not launch deep strikes into Iranian territory without opening secure corridors.
This mirrors Israel’s 1967 six-day war—cripple the enemy’s ability to see and respond, then dominate the skies. It is also heavily influenced by Western military doctrine, especially the U.S. strategy of SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses). For Israel, this is not just tactical, it is a way to lay the groundwork for what comes next. This will even help drop the Israeli military on the ground for specialised operations for a few hours.
Striking the human core by eliminating commanders
What followed was the assassination of high-ranking commanders, nuclear scientists, and cyber operatives. This is classic network-centric warfare—neutralising the people who hold the system together.
In military terms, it is an attempt to disrupt Iran’s OODA loop—the command-and-control cycle of “Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.” If decision-making nodes are eliminated, the system stutters, paralysed by confusion and leaderless inertia.
It is a strategy often employed by elite Western units like the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), but Israel has added a regional twist—mixing high-tech surveillance with long-standing human intelligence networks across West Asia. It is a scalpel in a world of sledgehammers.
Economic war by other means
In recent months, the campaign has widened to include energy infrastructure—oil refineries, power grids, and transport lines. This is kinetic sanctions in action. Unlike economic sanctions imposed by states or international bodies, these strikes are designed for immediate and visible impact. The message is clear: Iran’s ability to fund and sustain its military endeavours will be hit at the roots.
Moreover, the consequences ripple far beyond the battlefield. Blackouts and fuel shortages destabilise daily life, erode public trust in government, and strain the economic resilience of a nation already under pressure. This is hybrid warfare in its purest form—military tools used to provoke civilian consequences.
Information warfare
The latest chapter in this campaign has moved into even murkier terrain-information warfare. Israeli cyber units have targeted Iranian state media and propaganda networks. The goal here is not just censorship—it is chaos. Deny the regime the ability to shape public perception, and you fracture internal cohesion.
This psychological front is about weakening morale, sowing distrust, and providing space for alternative voices—exile groups, reformists, or simply disillusioned citizens—to be heard. In the age of 5th Generation Warfare, where perception can overpower arms and ammunition, this is arguably the most subversive tactic of all.
Iran’s response: Ballistic missiles and drones
Iran, for its part, has not sat idle. Its response reflects a deep understanding of hybrid warfare and the value of strategic patience. Moreover, Iran has invested in operational deception—moving key assets underground, dispersing command structures, and relying on ballistic missile attacks and drone attacks deep inside Israel. According to Israel’s Defence Forces, more than four hundred ballistic missiles and more than a thousand drones were launched by the fifth day of the war, which caused unexpected damage to Israel. Iran has also activated its proxies in Iraq in order to check the U.S. bases If the U.S. directly enters the war. The indigenous capability of Iran has shown a bit of restraint to Israel’s hybrid warfare but would not sustain it for long.
A war of layers, not just lines
What we are witnessing is not a traditional war. It is a campaign that spans dimensions—cyber, kinetic, economic, and cognitive. Israel is no longer just trying to deny Iran nuclear capability; it is attempting to deny it systemic control. This is where the real danger lies.
Such a campaign risks drawing the region into broader conflict. If Iranian leadership feels its survival is at stake, escalation becomes more likely. Regional actors—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE—may be pulled into a security dilemma. Global powers like the U.S., Russia, and China will inevitably be forced to weigh in, especially if economic or energy markets are destabilised.
The final outcome will depend on three critical factors:
- Iran’s internal cohesion—can the regime absorb the shocks and maintain control?
- International diplomacy—will global actors push for de-escalation or tacitly endorse the offensive?
- Israel’s political calculus—does its leadership have the domestic backing to continue, or will internal pressure demand a recalibration?
Israel’s campaign is bold, layered, and dangerously sophisticated. It is not just about military superiority—it is about shaping the future of a hostile state. Whether that future includes regime change, negotiated capitulation, or open war, one thing is clear- West Asia has entered a new phase of strategic confrontation, and the geopolitical map would not be the same as today.
News