Internal Dissent Rises in Israel Following War on Iran Amid Lack of Political Strategy

As with other conflicts, Israel, in coordination with the United States, launched a war on Iran without any realistic political plan.

In recent days, amidst continuous claims of success in this war, a new tone has begun to be heard in the Israeli media, shattering the illusion of Israel being 'invincible.' This is the first sign of a narrative of defeat.

Writing in Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper on March 25, Yossi Yehoshua detailed the tension between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad Chief David Barnea regarding the failure of the plan to overthrow the Iranian regime.

Three days prior, The New York Times reported that in January, Barnea presented a plan to overthrow the Iranian leadership through a successful uprising to US officials. Such messages would not have been carried to Washington by the Mossad Chief without the approval of his Prime Minister.

The sense of crisis became even clearer when Israeli Army Chief Herzi Halevi warned the Security Cabinet that the army itself could collapse, especially due to a shortage of manpower.

When the political and security apparatuses begin blaming each other in the midst of war, it is never a good sign. Such a debate was not expected in Israel a month after attacking Iran in coordination with the United States.

Iran has responded by attacking Israeli targets daily. Due to strict censorship, it is difficult to obtain accurate details of the damage on the Israeli side.

When the war began, there was an atmosphere of celebration in Israel. Senior Israeli officials praised the unprecedented and historic coordination with the United States, which included two meetings and 15 phone calls between Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump over the past two months.

Israeli and American forces jointly conducted a heavy bombing campaign, assassinating key political, religious, and military figures. Furthermore, civilian and government buildings, including security infrastructure, military industrial sites, missile launchers, and oil depots and gas fields, were damaged and destroyed.

Iran has responded by attacking Israeli targets daily. Due to strict censorship, it is difficult to obtain accurate details of the damage on the Israeli side.

Some strategic Israeli targets, including the Dimona nuclear reactor site, the Haifa oil refinery, and Ben Gurion Airport, have been affected. Moreover, Israelis have spent four weeks fleeing to bomb shelters and safe rooms more frequently in recent days than in the initial days of the war.

The economy has shrunk severely; schools and most businesses are closed, although repeated attempts were made to open them. Israel is certainly shaken, but it has not yet fallen.

Despite this, the war remains very popular among the general public. So-called Zionist opposition parties are competing with the government in terms of enthusiasm for the war and the extreme measures recommended.

Nevertheless, uncomfortable questions are slowly beginning to surface: Are some of Israel's assumptions about what can be achieved in a war involving the US being overturned? Is Iran's mosaic (multi-dimensional) strategy succeeding not just in surviving, but in forcing Israel to endure a greater cost?

Considering the nature of the strikes Israel is enduring and the more effective missiles being used, Iran's capacity to sustain retaliation has far surpassed initial estimates. The depletion of Israeli and American anti-missile stockpiles has become a growing concern.

Certainly, there is no doubt about Israel's capacity to destroy and inflict damage: one million Lebanese have been displaced.

Another front has opened for Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Questions are also being raised about that conflict. Israel had estimated that it had seriously wounded Hezbollah in 2024 and that it was now only a minor threat. However, the clear disappointment on the Israeli side emerged after Hezbollah demonstrated its ability to respond to Israeli actions with its own missile strikes and to resist Israeli ground operations locally. Viral appeals from local leaders in Northern Israel to the government to manage the situation have spread.

Certainly, there is no doubt about Israel's capacity to destroy and inflict damage: one million Lebanese have been displaced, bridges connecting Southern Lebanon to the rest of the country have been destroyed by bombing, and extensive damage has been inflicted. But this is just another military campaign without a clear end.

And these military adventures followed the campaign of death and destruction wrought by Israel in Gaza, despite which Hamas still exists. The Gaza war brought the Israeli Prime Minister an arrest warrant for war crimes from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a case for violating the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but it offered no political vision beyond more war and a 'zero-sum' mentality.

The common reason for this is not hard to find: Israel's adoption of a purely military approach without any realistic political plan. Therefore, in all these developments, the same fate seems to be repeating itself.

Excessive reliance on the military and the rejection of political plans are old Israeli habits, but what we are witnessing in the era of continuous war since 2023 is qualitatively different. To understand this, one must look at some changes occurring within Israel itself.

Netanyahu's talk of 'total victory' can be understood in the context of how Israel has experienced total impunity, fostering a mindset that the most extreme solutions can be adopted because one will get away with anything. Concurrently, changes have occurred in Israeli society, politics, and media. Religiously radical ideological views have influenced a large segment of the public. Incitement material promoting genocide is widespread in Israeli media.

For example, the presence of religious 'settler' elements in the high ranks of the Israeli military and other security agencies has increased. Key examples include David Barnea, head of the internal security service 'Shin Bet,' Avi Blum, head of the Israeli Army's Central Command, and Yoram Halevi, head of 'COGAT,' the body overseeing the daily lives of Palestinians.

Crucially, these changes are increasingly shaping Israel's national security thinking.

Israel's interest is directly contrary to the interests of parties wishing to end this war and its risks.

Some former military strategists close to the center of power are advocating that Israel should move away from short wars based on technological superiority and prepare for a long conflict involving permanent occupation of land and the destruction of enemy 'infrastructure and people.'

The pursuit of a broadly defined 'Greater Israel' project has now become the predetermined national security doctrine. This includes attempts to erase Palestinian national collective identity and establish Israel as the region's primary 'hard power' and undisputed force.

Israel has been and will continue to be the main obstacle to ending this war on Iran. It must be assumed that Israel will continue to escalate and provoke the war and will thwart any negotiations or ceasefire by pushing the United States into ground operations.

Therefore, Israel's interest is directly contrary to the interests of parties wishing to end this war and its risks.

Meanwhile, the erratic rhetoric of the US President does not project strength. Doubts are growing regarding the existing strategy, the overestimation of Israeli-American capabilities, and the tendency to underestimate the Iranian side. Questions are even being raised about the functionality of the US administration itself. The problem for Israel is that the US can decide at any moment to pack its bags and return to its safe home surrounded by Canada, Mexico, and the sea, leaving Israel alone without any good options.

The Suez Crisis of 1956, when Britain and France, along with Israel, were involved in a Middle Eastern war, is viewed as the moment of collapse for those countries' empires. It is likely that Israel dragging the US into this war on Iran will be remembered in a similar light.

What is noteworthy is that Israel has shown its dependence on the US at a time when it is actively accelerating the process of America's global decline and making support for Israel unpopular among the American public. This is a potentially toxic mix.

In attempting such high ambitions, Israel may be digging its own path to a dramatic downfall.

Al Jazeera