Israel’s
Assault: Russia’s First Impressions
A few days after Israel’s
surprise strike on Iran, the contours of the operation’s initial success have
come into sharper focus. It’s now evident that the effectiveness of the first
wave was made possible not by air power alone, but by an elaborate network of
sabotage teams and advanced planning. At the same time, Iran’s military
capabilities remain intact, and Israel is under daily retaliatory missile fire.
The
key factor in Israel’s early success was the coordinated use of special
operations units inside Iran. These teams deployed compact guided missiles and
loitering drones - closely resembling the systems currently being used by both
Russia and Ukraine. Their primary targets were Iran’s air defense assets, which
had previously allowed Tehran to track enemy aircraft with passive detection
systems while limiting radar emissions to moments of missile launch - mirroring
Ukraine’s own strategy.
Despite
this layered defense, the Israeli Air Force systematically eliminated a
significant portion of Iran’s air defense infrastructure within a matter of
hours - and did so without incurring any reported losses. Considering that
Israeli aircraft had to cover over 1,500 kilometers from their home bases,
navigate the airspace of at least two neutral countries, and refuel mid-air en
route, the operational results are, by any standard, extraordinary.
What
Israel has demonstrated is the potential of a high-tech air force trained and
equipped for real war. Iran, on the other hand, had grown accustomed to
projecting strength through parades, rocket displays, and dramatic
pronouncements. Somewhere along the way, the aesthetics of deterrence overtook
actual combat readiness. When faced with a military that was preparing not for
posturing but for victory, Iran was caught flat-footed.
This
episode also serves as a stark rebuke to the argument that manned aircraft are
obsolete. The idea that drones alone define modern warfare now seems
dangerously naïve.
But
the Israeli model also reveals a key vulnerability: the tankers. Without
mid-air refueling, the entire operation would have been logistically
impossible. These large, slow aircraft are difficult to hide. In an era of
commercial satellite imagery, growing access to Chinese reconnaissance data,
and Iran’s residual ballistic capabilities, these refueling assets are a prime
target. And they may become the weak link in Israel’s campaign.
Now
to what’s gone unsaid.
First:
the United States is already involved. The accuracy of Israel’s strikes
suggests real-time intelligence that only one country on Earth can provide. The
U.S. alone has the capability to collect metadata from millions of mobile
devices across a region and either process that intelligence itself or hand the
raw data over to Israeli analysts. Only American platforms possess the
satellite and signals intelligence required to support a strike of such
precision.
Additionally,
the U.S. is directly involved in intercepting Iranian missiles and UAVs outside
Iranian territory. Washington is not a bystander. It is a co-combatant.
Second:
the sayanim network was likely activated. Sayanim - Hebrew for
“assistants” - refers to a covert global network of diaspora Jews who, while
maintaining official loyalty to their host nations, have been quietly
cultivated by Mossad for moments like this. Their roles are logistical, not
operational: renting garages, purchasing vehicles, arranging housing, and
providing low-profile local support without needing to know the broader
mission.
This
network was exposed decades ago by former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky in
his 1990 book By Way of Deception, which claimed that in the 1980s
Mossad had over 7,000 sayanim in London alone. While Iran officially
condemns antisemitism and reserves parliamentary seats for its Jewish minority,
the sharp drop in the Jewish population in the early 2000s - unaccompanied by a
comparable decline in public Jewish participation - suggests a large segment of
the community may have gone underground. It would be wrong to accuse all
Iranian Jews of involvement in espionage - but it would be equally naïve to
dismiss the sayanim factor entirely.
The
sheer scale of Israel’s initial operation - elite commandos on Iranian soil,
drones and missile systems positioned near military infrastructure, and the
total failure of Iran’s counterintelligence apparatus - strongly suggests
inside help. That help did not come from thin air.
Yet
for all its shock value, the Israeli strike was not a death blow. In fact,
evidence suggests that within weeks, Israel may begin running short of
precision munitions. While it will likely receive replenishments from the U.S.,
even American stockpiles are finite. At the moment, Israel is concentrating
fire on the exits of Iran’s underground missile facilities - trying to bury
launchers before they can be deployed. This strategy is effective, but not
sustainable.
What
happens next will depend largely on two variables: the political will of Iran’s
leadership and its ability to maintain control over its population.
Historically, Iran has shown remarkable endurance. Its war with Iraq lasted
nearly nine years. Israel, by contrast, is not built for prolonged conflict.
The Israeli public is already showing signs of psychological strain from
Iranian retaliation, even if material damage remains limited.
Meanwhile,
American tactical air power is being steadily increased in the region. Carrier
groups are repositioning to strike range. The entry of U.S. forces into the
conflict may be just days away.
≈
≈
Key
Takeaways
|
Category |
Russian Perspective |
|
Tactical Execution |
Highly effective first strike due to sabotage teams and
precise Israeli air operations |
|
Iran’s Defense |
Caught unprepared; air defense network crippled within
hours |
|
Role of the U.S. |
Silent co-belligerent; provided ISR, SIGINT, and
targeting data |
|
Mossad’s Reach |
Possible use of sayanim network to support covert
ground operations |
|
Strategic Risk |
Israel’s heavy reliance on vulnerable refueling aircraft
noted |
|
Long-Term Outlook |
Israel may face munitions shortages; morale at risk under
prolonged conflict |
|
Geopolitical Concern |
Seen by Moscow as a proxy rehearsal for a future U.S.- led
escalation |