Israel’s War on Iran: First Strikes, Surprises — and the Battles Still to Come

Israel’s War on Iran: First Strikes, Surprises — and the Battles Still to Come

By Elijah J. Magnier

Israel’s sudden and massive air campaign against Iran — aimed at crippling its nuclear and missile programs and targeting its military leadership — is not a limited operation. It marks the opening phase of a full-scale war, declared by Israel with the strategic goal of regime change rather than simply halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In a sophisticated ruse coordinated with Washington, Israel launched its attack after the U.S. president had publicly expressed optimism about the outcome of nuclear negotiations — a move designed to lull Iran’s defences and create a false sense of calm. Hours later, at 03:00 am local time, Israeli airstrikes hit hundreds of targets across Iran, continuing throughout the day. This was no isolated strike — Israel’s air campaign is ongoing and far from finished.

The Opening Blow

Israel succeeded in catching Iran off guard. It struck the surface structures of the Natanz nuclear enrichment site (though the underground facilities remain intact), killed six leading nuclear and physics scientists, and assassinated over a dozen senior Iranian military commanders. Among them was IRGC Commander-in-Chief Major General Hossein Salami, whose death led to an urgent reshuffle at the top of Iran’s military leadership.

The Israeli assault also targeted Iran’s command and control infrastructure, destroying the Khatam al-Anbiya IRGC operational room — a mirror image of Israel’s successful strike on Hezbollah’s leadership weeks earlier, including the killing of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

In parallel, Mossad agents inside Iran sabotaged key anti-air missile systems, giving Israeli jets greater freedom of action and reducing the immediate threat to their operations.

Iran Holds Its Fire — For Now

In the critical hours following the strikes, Iran refrained from launching an immediate response. The delay was partly structural: newly appointed military leaders needed time to assume their roles and coordinate remaining forces. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds ultimate authority over military decisions under Article 110 of the Iranian Constitution, had yet to approve a full retaliation plan.

Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, previously head of the IRGC Ground Forces (2009–2025), has now been appointed as the new Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC, but his experience does not cover the entire spectrum of IRGC operations. He must first obtain a comprehensive overview of Iran’s current operational capabilities before ordering countermeasures.

Meanwhile, Major General Seyyed Abdolrahim Mousavi, until now Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Army (Artesh), has been appointed Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, replacing the assassinated Mohammad Bagheri. His experience is more compatible with the role, but again, full situational awareness is required before Iran can launch a coordinated counterstrike.

In Tehran, the leadership is methodically assessing the damage to Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile, industrial base, and command capabilities — while waiting for a green light from Khamenei for a carefully calibrated response.

Despite the extensive Israeli assault, Iran’s nuclear program is far from destroyed. The surface damage at Natanz did not trigger any excess radiation, according to the IAEA, confirming that the core enrichment facilities remain operational. The Fordow facility — Iran’s deeply buried enrichment site near Qom — was untouched. Built inside a mountain, Fordow would require a U.S. B-2 bomber carrying a GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator to have any realistic chance of penetration.

This is a crucial point: failing to destroy the nuclear program entirely means Netanyahu’s objective has shifted. The war is no longer about centrifuges — it is about trying to break the Islamic Republic itself.

Israel also targeted strategic sites in Tabriz, a hub for Iran’s ballistic missile production, particularly solid-fuel missiles— a top Israeli concern. Solid-fuel missiles are easier to store and launch and offer quicker response times, which explains why Israel is focused on degrading this capability as early as possible.

The Israeli assault was enabled by U.S. complicity — the American president’s false narrative about progress in nuclear talks helped keep Iranian air defence on low alert. In the hours before the attack, Iran believed negotiations might still bear fruit. The deception allowed Israel to achieve tactical surprise.

The Risks Ahead

Iran’s leadership knows it must retaliate — failure to do so would undermine the Islamic regime’s credibility. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows this too. His air force is racing to degrade Iran’s missile stockpiles and industry to soften the blow of any Iranian counterattack.

Yet the stakes are enormous. If Iran’s response proves too weak, Israel may seize the opportunity to escalate further — potentially “copy-pasting” Ariel Sharon’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when Israeli tanks pushed far beyond their initial objectives. Netanyahu would not hesitate to advance further if Iran appears vulnerable.

This will determine the scope and duration of the war: can Iran inflict sufficient pain to deter further Israeli escalation, or will Israel find an opening to push deeper?

One key unknown is whether Hezbollah will enter the fight. The group’s leadership has suffered severe setback, but Hezbollah is not Iran — and it retains autonomous decision-making. Joining the war – despite great damage that would follow – could force international powers to intervene and impose a ceasefire through a UN resolution, which would also freeze Israeli operations in Lebanon and finally address the thousands of ceasefire violations Israel has committed there.

Such an intervention could serve Iran’s interests, locking in a ceasefire that protects its regime and halts Israel’s broader ambitions. But whether Hezbollah will judge the risks worth it remains to be seen, otherwise Iran is on its own, which remains highly unlikely in a similar war with Netanyahu’s grand objective.

A Battle of Wills

Ultimately, this war is not about nuclear facilities alone. It is about political will and strategic endurance. Israel has so far executed a brilliant tactical operation — its decapitation strikes against Iranian and Hezbollah leadership have succeeded beyond expectations. But Iran is not Hezbollah. Whether Tehran can now stage a credible, painful response that forces Israel to rethink its escalation will determine the course of the conflict.

Israel’s gamble is clear: that Iran is too weak, too slow, or too cautious to strike back effectively. But if Iran does manage to restore balance fast enough and hurt Israel badly enough, Netanyahu’s campaign will succeed. It all depend on how intensive the Iranian retaliation will be and how painful it will be felt in Israel and among its allies, in particular the US that could rush for an overt help.

For now, the world watches as this dangerous contest unfolds. The coming days will reveal whether Israel can achieve its aims — or whether Iran can turn the tide.