The US-Israeli war on Iran is founded on two huge mistakes
The US-Israeli war on Iran is founded on two huge mistakes
Two weeks into the conflict between Israel and the United States, the decision to strike Iran appears to rest on two significant errors. These miscalculations, though rooted in differing national perspectives, have shaped the current trajectory of the war.
An American miscalculation: Regime change expectations
The first mistake stems from the United States’ belief that Iran’s leadership could be overthrown. Despite the aerial assault, US officials claimed to have neutralized Iran’s capacity to launch attacks, positioning the conflict as a stepping stone toward regime change.
“If we had not acted immediately, within a few months Iran’s industries of death would have become immune to any strike,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his first televised address after the attack.
Netanyahu emphasized the urgency of the operation, stating that the strikes would create conditions for Iran’s people to challenge the Islamic Republic. However, the results suggest otherwise.
An Israeli misreading: Hezbollah’s resilience
The second error lies in Israel’s underestimation of Hezbollah’s strength and potential reaction. The Israeli-American campaign assumed that the Lebanese group would be vulnerable, but Iran’s allies have proven more durable than anticipated.
“Our objective is to prevent Iran from developing ballistic missiles that threaten Israel, the United States, and the entire world,” Netanyahu asserted, while also framing the attack as a catalyst for internal Iranian dissent.
US President Donald Trump echoed this sentiment, claiming the strikes had prevented a nuclear conflict. “If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first,” he told reporters, reinforcing the narrative of preemptive action.
Yet, the war’s outcome contradicts this logic. Despite the strikes, Iran has not only retained its core capabilities but also launched retaliatory attacks. These have inflicted damage on regional allies and even targeted US forces, highlighting the strategic miscalculation.
Notably, Iran swiftly replaced its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with his son Mojtaba Khamenei, indicating the regime’s continued stability. This resilience challenges the notion that the attack would destabilize the system.
Furthermore, the initial 12-day war in June 2025, which Israel hailed as a “historic victory,” failed to deliver a decisive blow. While the country claimed it had eliminated two “existential threats,” Iran’s nuclear and missile programs remain intact, capable of projecting power across the Middle East.
Now, with Iran demonstrating its ability to counterattack, the initial assumption—that a military strike would force regime collapse—seems unfounded. The sustained damage to US interests, including threats to the Strait of Hormuz, underscores the risks of this miscalculation.
