The Begin Doctrine from 1981 has once again returned to the forefront. For the 3rd time in history, the Middle East awakens to an Israeli operation marked by exceptional precision and military strategic depth — this time aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities.
As in the previous strikes in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007), the decision was made at the threshold of an irreversible nuclear milestone: in those earlier cases, just before the activation of a nuclear reactor; in the current case, just before the completion of weaponization — mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.
While the core rationale remains familiar, the scale and complexity of the current operation — and the fact that Iran has pursued nuclear ambitions for over three decades — present fundamentally different challenges. These require a distinct analytical lens, reflective of a new strategic and regional reality.
The IDF and Mossad’s groundbreaking military achievements are extraordinary by any measure, further deepening the dissonance when contrasted with the October 7 epic failure. The current operation reflects the full force of Israel’s firepower-intelligence integration — arguably the most advanced in the world — combined with seamless inter-agency coordination, covert operational reach deep inside Iranian territory, and the successful execution of a deception plan designed to maximize the element of surprise and operational impact.
The result: a series of exceptional kinetic achievements that may lay the groundwork for a shift in the regional balance. In Iran, signs of leadership destabilization are already visible — military figures such as Bakeri, Salami and Hajizadeh, alongside key nuclear officials including Fereydoun Abbasi and senior scientists, were reportedly eliminated. These developments come amid heavy, sustained damage to uranium enrichment infrastructure, weapons-group facilities, missile sites and air defense systems, effectively denying Iran an immediate retaliatory capability.
Beyond the material impact, the deep psychological shock to the Ayatollah’s regime is expected to continue eroding the personal and national sense of security within Iran’s leadership. The operation serves as a stark reminder of Israel’s superior military and intelligence capabilities, resonating across the Middle East landscape.
3 View gallery
Tel Aviv after being hit by an Iranian ballistic missile
(Photo: REUTERS/Moshe Mizrahi)
Among the strategic gains of the operation is Israel’s contribution to the broader interests of the free world. President Trump — well known for claiming ownership of perceived successes — was quick to praise the Israeli strike as “excellent,” signaling that Israel’s actions serve as a valuable asset in the geopolitical equation. The operation is now being framed as a key bargaining chip in the ongoing U.S. negotiations with the Iranian regime over the past two months, with the “Israeli ace” becoming a powerful card in the diplomatic poker game with Tehran.
As the U.S. establishment voices praise for the IDF’s overwhelming operational success, it may also signal the erosion of a longstanding objection in Washington — held by successive presidents and much of the American intelligence community for over two decades — against a kinetic strike on Iran. President Trump is even taking it a step further by effectively turning Israeli military action and American diplomacy into complementary pillars of an emerging strategy vis-à-vis Iran. This might mark a significant shift in Washington’s strategic posture and may trigger a deeper reckoning within the U.S. intelligence community’s conservative posture.
For years, the American intelligence community has struggled to move beyond its cautious, often compromise-oriented approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions — tending to downplay the severity of the threat while overstating the regime’s military capabilities. Israel’s historic initiative to dismantle much — though not all — of Iran’s nuclear capabilities could mark a pivotal moment in the trajectory of longstanding U.S. policy toward its Iranian adversary.
Still, beyond the praise and potential historical weight of the operation — though it is too early for definitive conclusions — the challenges of shaping the post-strike reality are far more complex than in the nuclear past cases of Syria and Iraq.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
Foremost is the imperative to translate military success into a coherent political strategy while anticipating and managing possible shifts in Iranian calculations. Among these are the risk that Tehran may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in response to the strike on its nuclear facilities; the immediate expulsion of IAEA inspectors — an especially grave development given that much of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile may remain intact.
Avi KaloPhoto: Aloni MorAnd the emergence of a covert “small pine” program — a downsized, hidden initiative in a secure location that would enable a rapid breakout toward nuclear capability. These, too, will require political power and strategic wisdom of the highest order, in one of the most complex challenges that Israel has faced since its founding: channeling the impressive military achievements of attacking the Iranian nuclear program into a fundamental change in the Middle East's near-future arms-control posture.