What We Learned About Striking Iran
Will the United States strike Iran? This question dominates current discussions, but it may be the wrong one. The real question is: When should force be used, and under what conditions?
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by General Yoav Gallant, a former Israeli Minister of Defense.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
Military action against Iran may prove essential. The regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its missile buildup, and its support for proxy armies across the Middle East pose a direct threat to the United States, to Israel, and to regional stability. Adding to that, the killing of tens of thousands of its own people during recent protests.
The question is not whether force is justified. It is whether the timing and conditions are set to make that force decisive. Waiting for the right moment, setting the conditions, and striking when the effect will be greatest is the mark of leadership and sound generalship.
That is what we can learn from previous encounters. Israel had plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program for many years. Those plans were drafted, revised, debated, and updated over the years. The threat was real for decades. But we waited. Not out of weakness or indecision. We waited because the conditions were not yet right, and we knew that when the moment came, it had to count.
A careful study of the current situation suggests that time is working in America’s favor, just as it worked in ours. Three dynamics are at play:
Accumulation of Military Strength – American capabilities and forces are being positioned across the region. Coordination is improving. Operational options are expanding with each passing week. Diplomacy carries more weight when backed by visible military force.
Strategic Use of Negotiations – The negotiations between the United States and Iran cannot produce a solution that meets the principles President Donald Trump has established, including the end of Iran’s nuclear program, the dismantlement of its missile arsenal, the cessation of support for proxy forces, and a halt to the killing of Iranian civilians. But even unsuccessful negotiations serve a purpose. They build the international legitimacy that military action requires. They demonstrate that all peaceful alternatives were exhausted. And they show the American public that their president did everything in his power before resorting to force.
Operational Timing – Weather conditions for air operations in the Middle East improve significantly with the transition to spring. March is better than February, and April is better than March. Military planners build these factors into their timelines. There is also a practical deadline. President Trump will not want America at war with Iran on July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of American independence. That is a national milestone that should be celebrated in a time of calm, not conflict. If military action is coming, it will most likely need to conclude before summer.
These factors indicate disciplined preparation, not reactive policymaking. We know this, because Israel followed the same logic.
What happened last June did not begin in June. The future American operation is made possible by the groundwork Israel laid, beginning with revised operational planning in early 2023 and the destruction of Iran’s defensive and offensive infrastructure in two separate operations, in October 2024 and again in June 2025.
A critical step was completed in September 2024, when we dismantled Hezbollah’s command structure and arsenal, removing the threat of a coordinated northern front. In October 2024, we struck Iran’s air defense systems, and laid the groundwork for a corridor of free movement from Israeli territory to Tehran.
With the opening of the campaign in June 2025, Israeli fighter jets struck targets across Iran in coordinated waves, because the groundwork had already been laid. We eliminated senior military commanders and nuclear scientists within minutes of the opening salvo. We flew over Tehran as freely as we fly over Beirut and Gaza. We destroyed missile production facilities and set back Iran’s nuclear program by years. Israel and the United States have coordinated closely on the Iranian file since April 2024, and that coordination during the 12 days of war proved that allied preparation multiplies the effect of force.
But there is more work ahead. Any realistic planning for a confrontation with Iran must assume that Iran will retaliate against Israel. Over the years, I have learned to take an enemy’s declarations seriously. Iran declares daily its intention to destroy Israel. Israel must learn from both our successes and our vulnerabilities. Defensive readiness must match offensive capability. Iran has learned lessons too. Open-source intelligence confirms they are rapidly rebuilding their ballistic missile program. We must be ready for all possibilities.
Iran is an enemy committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel must be coordinated with any American operation and act in full partnership, from the planning phase through execution. We must be fully integrated into the operational framework, strategically, in intelligence, and militarily.
When force is employed, the objective must be the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and the destruction of its missile infrastructure. Any operation should aim to achieve at least three military objectives: (1) degrading Iran’s military capabilities broadly, and its ballistic missile arsenal in particular; (2) inflicting maximum damage on all infrastructure related to Iran’s nuclear program; and (3) eliminating the regime’s political and military leadership.
On the question of regime change, expectations should be tempered. History offers few examples of revolutions producing better alternatives immediately. Previous cases in France, Russia, China, and in Iran itself all remind us of that.
It is also far from certain that the Iranian people will take to the streets again. They have endured at the hands of their own government one of the worst acts of state violence against a civilian population in recent decades, and they know the mortal danger that comes with protest. Whether internal political change comes is ultimately a decision for the Iranian people, though external action may help create the conditions for it. Stripping the regime of its ability to threaten its neighbors is a realistic objective that would reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.
No agreement with Iran will hold without a fundamental shift in the threat they pose to the region. In the Middle East, words on paper carry limited weight, especially with the Islamic Republic. Any deal will endure only if it is reached after Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities have been decisively degraded. Peace through strength is not a slogan. With Iran, it is the only path that works.
This piece is a strong reminder that public commentary, even from experts, isn't useless, but it often lacks the crucial context held by military commanders and those directly involved. We've seen how assessments of past operations can go badly awry; when strikes are still imminent, the margin for misjudgment widens even further. A great contribution!
❤️🙏🏼🔥