His war calculus seems to rest on a bold but flawed assumption: that sustained pressure could trigger popular unrest in Iran strong enough to topple the IRGC.
https://x.com/toffael/status/1934138443459706935
Netanyahu appears to have made a strategic miscalculation similar to Hamas on October 7 — initiating a high-stakes confrontation without full backing from his proxies or allies. His war calculus seems to rest on a bold but flawed assumption: that sustained pressure could trigger popular unrest in Iran strong enough to topple the IRGC.
However, reports suggest that even the IRGC’s staunchest domestic critics have rallied behind a national defense posture. The IRGC isn’t just a political force — it is the military. Any internal opposition lacks the arms, structure, and coordination to challenge it. Moreover, Iran has been preparing for this scenario for decades, accelerating its contingency planning especially since October 7, which many in the region view as a false flag to draw Iran into war. Tehran has likely anticipated the targeting of IRGC leadership, with deep bench strength and decentralised command ensuring continuity — killing top generals won’t cripple operational capacity.
Israel, meanwhile, faces a severe constraint: it cannot carry out mass civilian casualties without undermining any plausible attempt at regime change. Strategically, this limits their scope of attack.
The U.S. is in no position to commit ground forces — Iran’s vast size (70 times larger than Israel), mountainous terrain, and nationalist resistance would make any invasion a bloodbath. Washington couldn’t defeat the Taliban in 20 years under similar geographic and asymmetric conditions. A land war is untenable.
That leaves air strikes as the only viable Western strategy — but Iran is heavily fortified. It has enough ballistic and cruise missiles for a prolonged conflict, and a growing arsenal of supersonic weapons capable of inflicting critical damage on Israel’s infrastructure. Iran would suffer, but its size and strategic depth make it far more resilient. In contrast, Israel — compact, heavily urbanised, and psychologically vulnerable — is at far greater risk of societal breakdown under sustained attack. Israeli public morale has already shown signs of strain under relatively limited rocket fire.
Ultimately, it’s not just a war of weapons, but of endurance. And in that regard, Iran has the upper hand.
posted by Satish Sharma at
13:18
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home