In light of the current state of anticipation in the region following recent assassinations carried out by Israel, and Iran and Hezbollah's potential response, along with the ongoing genocide in Gaza, many Israeli analyses are focused on predicting the nature and extent of the response and its impact on the conflict between Iran and Israel, the fate of the war on Gaza, and the entire region. This contribution presents a review of a lengthy report prepared by Itamar Aldemon for Israeli Channel 12, which includes insights from Israeli researchers specialized in Iranian affairs. It highlights Iran's strategy in confronting Israel over the years and the transformations in the confrontation between the two, as well as Israel's opportunities to change the equation that has existed for decades, particularly after the sharp turn in the confrontation over recent months following Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate building in Syria and the subsequent drone and missile attacks on Israel on April 14. It is worth noting that all terms, ideas, and proposals in this contribution are sourced from the report itself and do not reflect the views of the author or the "Madar" Center.
The report starts from the reality that Iran has indeed succeeded in creating a "ring of fire" around Israel, and is prepared to embroil Israel in a war of attrition on multiple fronts. Notably, it has clear fingerprints in the October 7 attack, and despite everything, Iran continually manages to avoid paying the price itself. The report emphasizes that the Islamic Republic's "proxy" strategy in fighting Israel is at the core of Iranian hostility towards Israel and successfully robs Israel of the initiative each time.
Meir Ben Shabbat, former head of the National Security Council and current president of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Israeli Strategy, asserts that the assassination of Haniya in Tehran "represents a significant blow to Iranian national honor," as it occurred at the height of Iranian vigilance, just hours after the assassination of Hezbollah's top military leader, Fouad Ashkar (Haj Mohsen) in Beirut, days after an airstrike on the port of Hodeidah in Yemen, and following the assassination of Hamas's military wing leader Mohammed Deif, bringing Iran to a new reality: no one is immune, even within Iran itself, which places Iran - according to Ben Shabbat - in the same place as its proxies (i.e., under the same threat).
**"The Borders Between Iran and Israel: Is It Time to Change the Rules of the Game?"**
Iran today faces a difficult question of whether it should respond strongly and engage in war against Israel and the United States or calm the situation and swallow the blow. Conversely, Israel faces a specific strategic question: is it time to change the rules of the game? The report points out that for the past two decades, Iran has worked to harm the interests of Israel and the West in the Middle East and beyond through a sprawling network of proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, the Israeli and Western responses have until recently been limited to targeting proxies that absorb the blow on their behalf, meaning, neither Iran nor the Iranians.
For many years, Israel has carefully followed a policy of "sabotaging" the Iranian nuclear program and has not shied away from carrying out daring operations on Iranian territory itself, despite the risks and operational complexities involved. Concurrently, Iran's support for its proxies in Syria and Iraq has been countered by attacking Iranian targets in Syria as part of Israel’s military strategy known as the “campaign between campaigns.”
The report underscores that despite these attacks achieving "tactical successes" for Israel and the West, they have clearly failed to curb Iran's regional project.
Beni Sébti, a researcher on Iranian affairs at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, attempts to answer the question: why does Iran invest heavily in proxies? This policy began with the Islamic Revolution and was learned from the Soviet Union, stemming from the desire to export the revolution. This approach necessitates significant investment in creating more organizations loyal to Iran. On one side, this helps Iran export Shiite religious and political ideology. On the other, it expands the Islamic Republic's borders with its enemies, without those enemies having borders with it. For example, Hezbollah defends Iran and has borders with Israel, but Israel does not have borders with Iran!
Sébti emphasizes that while Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas is intended to maintain the Iranian threat near Israel's borders, Iranian support for the Houthis aims to entrench the Islamic Republic's influence near Saudi Arabia. This is rooted in the notion that "Iranians live in a survival consciousness, fearing invasion," a traditional sentiment since the days of the Persian Empire, explaining Tehran's continuous attempts to expand its borders: to push the enemy away and keep tensions and wars far from its territory, ensuring that the enemy does not reach the heart of Iran. This old approach is compounded by Iran's ideological hostility toward Israel, whose existence they do not acknowledge, and they harbor religious, ideological, and political animosity towards it.
**"The Iranian Octopus in the Region"**
Iran's network of proxies is not just a tactical tool as Aldemon asserts, but a fundamental element in the security concept of the Iranian regime, featuring a complex network of organizations and militias ideologically, politically, and militarily linked to the Islamic Revolutionary system. This widespread network in the region serves as the regime's long arms, promoting Iranian interests, challenging its enemies, including the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and actually poses a threat to Israeli and American interests in the region without the Islamic Republic having to bear direct responsibility, which saves it from the risk of a strong military response against it.
Sima Shaine, former head of research at the Mossad and now a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, states that "Iran's strategy is a result of exploiting opportunities," relying on Shiite communities in the region and establishing close relations with them politically and militarily primarily, as well as socially and economically in a bid to create dependency on Iran to enhance its influence in countries with Shiite populations. Therefore, Iran succeeds in ensuring that these countries never turn into hostile states. Shaine points out that these relations include establishing schools and hospitals alongside military and political support, illustrating that they exploited the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to support the Shiite majority in government positions, and similarly, they used the first Lebanon War, initiated by Israel, to establish and support Hezbollah. Shaine affirms that this strategy does not aim for complete and absolute control, but creates a dramatic and effective impact: for instance, in Iraq, it was impossible to elect a prime minister without the approval of the Shiite organizations, and Lebanon remained without a president for two years due to Hezbollah’s refusal, which has the final say in all political matters.
**The "Death by a Thousand Cuts" Approach**
Aldemon notes that Israel has acted more aggressively against Iran over the years, including on Iranian territory. Upon the formation of the 36th Israeli government, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett introduced the "Octopus Doctrine," focusing on the need to weaken the Iranian regime rather than engaging in ongoing skirmishes with its proxies in the region. He adopted a "death by a thousand cuts" approach, whereby a series of continuous operations against Iran are executed instead of delivering one decisive blow. Bennett mentioned in a speech before the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset in June 2022, “The days of immunity are over. The days when Iran harms Israel through its proxies without paying a direct price are over”… “It's about moving from border wars to strikes on Iranian territory, and not just relating to the nuclear issue.”
The application of this approach, according to Aldemon, was already observed in 2022, and according to Western media reports, Israel has shirked responsibility for many operations under this framework. The Mossad has launched drones that exploded at a drone factory in Kermanshah, destroying hundreds of drones ready for launch. In May 2022, Israel also assassinated Colonel Hassan Sayad Khodai, one of the senior commanders in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Unit 840. Throughout that year, a series of leaders in the Revolutionary Guard and scientists in nuclear, missile, and aviation fields were assassinated, and operations continued for several months after Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the premiership, with an announcement of targeting a military facility in Isfahan using Israeli drones.
Sébti points out that the "elimination of leaders" strategy is the solution, and the only way to confront Iran, based on his perception of Iran as a table standing on four legs, whereas today it stands on thousands of legs. Therefore, the most effective path to destroy the regime is through consecutive assassinations of Iranian leaders who adhere to the anti-Israel ideology, stressing that this approach requires patience and long breath until Israel eventually reaches the number one leader in Iran.
**"Iranians are in a state of hubris, living in a delusion of superiority!"**
Aldemon uses this title to describe Iranian policy towards Israel, pointing out that after the October 7 attack, Israel needed the United States to deter Iran, Hezbollah, and the Houthis for fear that they would open fronts against it. On the other hand, Sébti asserts that Iran cannot read Israel as Hezbollah does; it believes {Iran} that it has caused considerable irreparable damage to Israel, but according to Sébti, they do not understand Israel's ability to recover. He stresses that Hezbollah understands Israel better than the Iranians due to its experiences in the wars with it, yet the Iranians still struggle to read Israel and live in a delusion of superiority. It is difficult to make them experience Israel's power without direct war waged by Israel against them, but this is not a practical option right now. This situation compels Israel to kill Iranian leaders one by one to create a cumulative effect, whereby each assassination weakens the entire system and deters potential future leaders. According to Sébti, this strategy could eventually lead to the collapse of the Islamic order in Iran.
Conversely, Sébti confirms that Israel, despite all its military and security capabilities, cannot effectively confront the "fire ring" imposed by Iran alone; it lacks the capabilities of the United States. Therefore, Israel must seize opportunities whenever the United States is less involved to move and carry out assassinations. For instance, Israel did not inform the United States before the assassination of the Hamas political bureau chief in Tehran, as reported by The Washington Post.
**"A little humility won't harm Israel!"**
In contrast, Shaine, the former head of research at Mossad, argues that Israel should adopt a more humble policy towards Iran, responding to calls made in Israel under the slogan of "cut off the head of the octopus" and not just its arms. She emphasizes that Iran is a large country with a population of 90 million (larger than Germany) and is a huge state by size, which Israel should not get involved in confrontations with. She suggests that everyone advocating for a preemptive or preventive strike against Iran should "remember our true size; a little humility will not harm us." Shaine asserts that Israel’s current strategy of targeting Iran's proxies strikes Iran hard enough, and while Israel possesses sufficient capacities to hit Iran, it should do so only under optimal conditions and should not get dragged into a confrontation under such harsh circumstances, especially after 10 months of tough warfare Israel has experienced in Gaza.
**"Iran's New Toolbox"**
Aldemon points out that Iran has changed its tools and broken the equation that has existed for decades, as the missile and drone attacks on April 14 marked a sharp shift in Iran's policies towards Israel after targeting a military general from the Revolutionary Guard at the consulate building in Syria. Despite the international and regional coalition successfully thwarting the attack - according to Aldemon - and despite Israel carrying out an operation in Iran targeting the S-300 air defense battery used to protect nuclear facilities.
**"Iranian Pride and the Opportunity for Fundamental Change!"**
The report indicates that the region and the world as a whole are in a state of anticipation amidst numerous attempts to lessen the severity of Iran and Hezbollah's response to the assassination of Haniya in Tehran and the assassination of Ashkar in Beirut. A sign hanging on a building in Palestine Square in Tehran clearly indicates Iran's direction: "Wait for severe punishment" in Hebrew, coinciding with Iran's response to all parties by stating that it will respond to the assassination strongly and effectively, even if it leads to the expansion of the current war. Sébti rejects this notion, asserting that Iran has reached a high level of audacity, but nonetheless, they understand that their stockpiles are not infinitely full, and their arsenal of 5,000 long-range missiles that can reach anywhere could deplete rapidly, leaving them without missiles. This reality will make them cautious in their calculations this time.
The report concludes by stating that Iran is indeed determined to respond to the assassination incident, perhaps more severely this time than during the April 14 attack, indicating that the war with Iran is not over yet, which places Israel before a big question: “Will Israel continue to confront the arms of the octopus, or will it resort to cutting off its head?” Sébti points out in the end that Iranian pride must be broken, requiring a strong blow against it akin to what happened to Japan in World War II. The goal, according to him, should be to remove the current Iranian leadership and allow for internal change, as the rapid collapse of regimes occurs after the charismatic leader loses his grip on power, which will create an opportunity for fundamental change.
