Israel’s bold, and dangerous, gamble

On Friday morning last week, Israel carried out a drone strike deep inside Iranian territory, as part of its wider assault on Iranian military infrastructure. It was a masterclass in modern warfare.

Although only a small part of Israel’s wider, conventional air campaign, the drone strike’s psychological and strategic significance is enormous. Given the clear parallels with Ukraine’s daring drone raids into Russian territory, the Israeli operation suggests we are entering a new era of warfare where subterfuge is leveraged for both military and psychological purposes, and no rear area is safe.

What made Israel’s drone attacks so extraordinary was the fact that they were likely launched from within Iranian territory itself. For Mossad assets on the ground to strike at the heart of Iran’s most secure military zone is a staggering intelligence and operational feat.

This model of warfare closely mirrors Ukraine’s tactics against Russia. There, small, low-cost drones have been used to hit targets miles inside Russian territory, creating psychological pressure that outpaces their physical damage. Israel seems to be pursuing the same objectives: shaking Iranian confidence, exposing regime vulnerability and projecting reach far beyond what traditional battlefield maps would suggest is possible.

This has happened as part of an increasingly perilous confrontation. Israel’s strategic aim is to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but Israel’s capacity to achieve that goal through military means is highly constrained. Despite its formidable air force, Israel lacks the deep-penetration munitions needed to destroy uranium-enrichment sites like Fordow, which is buried half a mile deep beneath a mountain.

That is why the narrative emerging from Jerusalem is shifting. The focus is moving from merely destroying uranium-enrichment equipment to destabilising the regime itself. Israel’s strategy appears to be that airstrikes combined with international isolation and grassroots discontent will erode the Iranian regime’s hold on power. The implied strategic goal is now regime change, alongside the stated aim of destroying, or more likely delaying, Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

This is a bold, and dangerous, gamble. The Iranian regime is certainly militarily weakened, economically battered and diplomatically cornered. But it retains the tools of repression and a powerful narrative of nationalist resistance. There is not yet a clear sign that the Iranian people, long brutalised and currently terrified, are poised to rise up en masse. In fact, external strikes often provide Tehran with the excuse it needs to tighten the screws at home.

So what does ‘success’ look like for each side? For Israel, the best-case scenario in Iran is that a combination of internal unrest, elite fragmentation and sustained sabotage, along with airstrikes, either collapse the regime or force it to retreat from its nuclear programme. The second-best outcome would be a significant delay to Iran’s nuclear programme, perhaps buying a decade or more. The worst-case scenario is that Iran weathers the storm and sprints for a bomb.

For Iran, ‘success’ means surviving the onslaught while projecting strength, deterring future attacks through visible retaliation and perhaps leveraging the threat of nuclear capability to force concessions. If Tehran can maintain regional influence, continue enrichment and keep Israel guessing, it will consider that a strategic win. The Iranians may accept Trump’s offer of a deal to reconsider their nuclear ambitions, although this would represent a humbling strategic defeat.

There is a darker prospect, too: unending escalation. This cycle could spiral into a painful and damaging campaign of attrition for both sides. Should Iran refuse to compromise, firmly on the back foot and battered from the skies, it is conceivable that Israel will escalate. This could mean striking at the political leadership itself, and forcing the regime change Israel is currently only hinting at.

Which brings us to the crucial question: how does this de-escalate? At present, it does not. Neither side is incentivised to back down. Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat; Iran perceives Israeli aggression as justification for doubling down. The lack of a credible mediator and the erosion of American deterrence highlight just how fragile the situation is.

One path to stability may lie in backchannel diplomacy, particularly if the US and Gulf states can persuade Iran to halt enrichment in exchange for an end to hostilities. However, Israel’s leadership seems to have little faith in diplomacy and no desire for a pause. They believe time is not on their side.

Israel’s absolute penetration of Iran’s security environment and its total air supremacy over its enemy’s capital city should be understood as both a message and a warning. It says: ‘We are inside your defences. We can strike you at will.’ It also reveals a strategic conundrum. Israel has embarked on a campaign that may be beyond its means to finish. Effective as these strikes are, they may not stop Iran’s nuclear drive and might even accelerate it.

What began with a covert drone strike has now turned into open conflict. Rockets are being fired at Israeli cities and airstrikes are lighting up the skies over Tehran. Israel is gambling on precision, pressure and psychological warfare to bring down a regime it hopes to bomb into submission. Iran is betting that it can absorb the blows, outlast its enemies and emerge nuclear-armed. Both sides are pushing the boundaries of strategy and restraint.

Right now, neither side has the option to stop. Both are willing to find out what happens when they do not. Whatever happens next could shape the Middle East for decades.

Andrew Fox is a former British Army officer and an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, specialising in defence and the Middle East.