The First Strike Does Not Determine the War

Recent Israeli analyses reveal a fundamental paradox in the course of the war with Iran: while the military superiority of Israel and the United States seems clear in the early days, some strategic analysts warn that the war could turn into a long and costly confrontation if the element of time is not managed carefully. Despite significant field achievements in striking Iran's military infrastructure and command centers, Iran remains capable of turning time into a strategic weapon that could alter the balance of power and increase the cost of conflict for both sides.

In this context, the remarks of some analysts, like David Gindelman, stand out, focusing on the expanding target bank and the intensity of air strikes, arguing that operational superiority reflects Israel's ability to control the course of the war. However, a more cautious strategic reading, presented by military researcher Hanan Shay, suggests that military superiority alone is insufficient, and Iran still possesses the ability to prolong the war and gradually exhaust the attacking side.

Since the early days of the war, Israel and the United States have focused on delivering wide-ranging strikes against Iran's military infrastructure, targeting ballistic missile facilities, military command centers, and defensive infrastructure. The strikes later expanded to include sensitive economic sites such as energy facilities and oil refineries, reflecting a shift in the battle from targeting direct military capabilities to striking at the sources of economic power of the Iranian regime.

The primary strategic challenge is that the attacking side starts the war with the advantages of initiative, surprise, and concentration of force, but these advantages gradually erode over time, especially if the defending side manages to absorb the initial blow and reorganize its capabilities. In such cases, the war may shift from a rapid confrontation to a prolonged war of attrition, where the advantage of the offense gradually diminishes in favor of the defense.

Additionally, the prolonged war carries direct political and economic consequences. Escalating tensions in the Gulf and the Middle East could lead to disruption of energy markets and rising oil and gas prices, imposing economic pressures on Western countries, especially Europe, which seeks to secure stable energy sources. The continuation of the war may also exacerbate political divisions within the Western bloc and grant other international powers like China economic advantages in this context.

The risk of the confrontation spreading regionally remains, given the presence of groups linked to Iran such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen, which could open additional fronts and complicate the military and political landscape further.

Thus, discussions within Israel reflect a clear tension between two levels of thinking: one level focuses on field achievements and immediate military superiority, while the other level recognizes that military superiority alone may lose part of its effectiveness if the confrontation turns into a long war of attrition.

In light of this, the real challenge facing Israel and the United States is not limited to continuing military strikes but relates to the ability to manage the strategic element of time in the war. While military superiority may be feasible in the short term, avoiding slipping into a regional war of attrition remains key to ensuring a clear and genuine strategic victory.

Ultimately, these analyses reveal that the war with Iran is not just a struggle on land or in the sky, but a battle of time and strategic resources. The military superiority achieved by Israel and the United States today does not guarantee a final victory if the confrontation turns into a long war of attrition, imposing huge political and economic costs on the attacking parties and giving Iran an opportunity to reorganize its cards.

This equation reflects the fragility of any simplistic notion of victory: on one hand, operational superiority proves that air power and military precision can create a tangible impact, while on the other hand, the regional reality dictates that any carefully calculated move may explode into multi-front confrontations involving Hezbollah, the Houthis, and possibly other regional parties, complicating strategic calculations further.

The main message here is that the victor in the war is not necessarily the one who possesses the greatest weaponry, but rather the one who has the ability to manage time and opportunities in a way that transforms military superiority into a sustainable strategic victory. And Israel, despite its significant field achievements, faces a real test: how does it prevent military superiority from becoming a trap of attrition? How does it resolve the war before time becomes its opponent's strongest weapon?

In this context, every calculated step on the military and political stage appears as a delicate battle between violence and intelligence, between power and time, illustrating that any miscalculation may turn the tables, not only on the Israeli side but on the entire region.