Why Israel’s Strategy Failed Against Hamas but Might Work Against Iran
So here's the thing—Israel’s "hit-list" strategy, this approach where they go after top leaders to weaken enemy operations, has shown serious cracks when it comes to Hamas. Despite the elimination of numerous senior commanders, it hasn’t really delivered the results that were expected. Hostages haven’t been released. The Gaza war drags on. And perhaps most telling of all: new Hamas leaders seem to pop up as quickly as old ones are taken out—like some kind of deadly game of whack-a-mole. The idea that decapitating leadership would lead to organizational collapse just hasn’t played out in Gaza.
But now we’re seeing Israel apply a very similar tactic to Iran. And it raises a critical question: if this strategy didn’t break Hamas, why should anyone expect it to work against the Iranian regime?
Recently, Israel launched precision strikes that reportedly took out key figures in Iran’s military leadership. It’s an aggressive escalation, and one that reportedly even had U.S. officials urging restraint—particularly regarding Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Yet, despite calls for caution, the Israeli government seems to believe it can strategically neutralize Iran through targeted blows.
Also Read:- Police Failures Exposed in Harry Dunn Case: Justice Delayed, Trust Betrayed
- Canada and Honduras Clash to Open Their 2025 Gold Cup Journey in Vancouver
But here's where things get tricky. Iran is not Gaza. It’s a massive, structured state with far more advanced capabilities—especially in missile technology. According to recent reports, Iran has fired over 700 medium-range ballistic missiles at Israel just in the last 14 months. That’s a staggering number. Analysts estimate they may still have anywhere from 300 to over 1,000 left, though this number keeps shrinking due to Israeli airstrikes.
Yet this isn’t just about raw numbers. Iran’s approach to warfare is deeply different from Hamas. Hamas is a guerrilla group embedded in dense civilian populations, skilled at surviving leadership losses. Iran, on the other hand, is a conventional actor, one that relies heavily on infrastructure, logistics, and strategic deterrence—particularly through its missile program. So when Israel targets missile production sites or air defense systems in Iran, it can have a real, measurable impact on Iran’s ability to respond.
Still, there's a broader risk. While Iran may struggle with prolonged conventional warfare, they excel at playing the long game—covert operations, proxy militias, regional alliances. And now, with potential assistance from countries like China in resupplying missile components, Iran’s recovery may only be a matter of time. This conflict, therefore, may evolve more into a war of attrition than a quick knockout punch.
So what are we really seeing here? On one side, a failed strategy in Gaza that exposed the limits of Israel’s long-standing military doctrine. On the other, a gamble that the same approach—applied to a very different opponent—might succeed. Whether that gamble pays off will depend not just on the effectiveness of airstrikes, but on how Iran adapts, responds, and leverages its remaining capabilities.
Ultimately, this isn't just a military question. It's a question of strategic thinking, political vision, and global balance. Israel is betting on targeted decapitations to bring security. But if the Hamas case taught us anything, it’s that sometimes cutting off the head doesn’t kill the snake. It just grows another one.
Read More:
0 Comments