Operation “Am KaLavi” continues to astonish the world and reinforces Israel’s stature as a military and security powerhouse. Beyond the impressive capabilities demonstrated by the Israeli Air Force, Mossad, and other agencies involved, the political leadership and the clearly synchronized strategic moves notably stand out. These factors instill a strong sense of confidence among those directing the campaign, primarily due to the clarity of direction.
The astonishing success raises an inevitable question: Is this the same Israel that previously endured prolonged stagnation in Gaza? How does a nation that struggles to achieve its objectives in a small territory like Gaza manage to swiftly undermine the formidable Iranian threat and approach the completion of strategic goals in mere days?
In this paper, I will highlight the key differences between these two campaigns in terms of their management, exploring the reasons behind these disparities.
General Characteristics of the Campaigns
Combat Features
In Gaza, Israel’s declared goals are comprehensive: the total eradication of Hamas and the safe return of all hostages. Achieving these objectives requires ground maneuvers and, particularly challenging in Gaza, subterranean operations due to Hamas’s extensive tunnel infrastructure. Despite Gaza’s geographical proximity, this operation is extraordinarily painstaking. Hamas, as a guerrilla organization, utilizes civilian populations and hostages as human shields, blending among them. Such conditions necessitate extensive ground forces, as it is not merely about capturing a few strategic points or disabling specific enemy systems, but systematically clearing and securing every inch of territory.
The greatest complexity in Gaza is undoubtedly the hostage situation, significantly limiting maneuverability and speed. Yet, despite these complexities, from an early stage, Hamas no longer poses a direct existential threat to Israel’s home front. Primarily, IDF soldiers bear the brunt, allowing Israel relatively more breathing space, despite considerable costs.
Conversely, the Iranian campaign faces a distant but powerful state entity. However, its goals are more narrowly defined: eliminating specific threats. Currently, it is conducted solely from the air. The primary challenges here are intelligence and operational effectiveness, focused on neutralizing Iran’s capabilities and undermining regime stability. The risk to Israel’s civilian population, notably from ballistic missile threats, is far greater and potentially devastating, exacerbating economic paralysis. In this scenario, Israel has minimal room for extended operations.
Geopolitical Playing Fields
Every military campaign ideally concludes with effective diplomatic actions achieving strategic aims. Hamas and Iran, however, operate on vastly different geopolitical stages with distinct incentives to end hostilities. Hamas, as a sub-state entity, aims primarily to maintain control in Gaza. From early in the conflict, Hamas relies primarily on two cards: time and hostages. Ironically, although weaker than Iran, Hamas has less to lose. Time favors Hamas because prolonged fighting worsens hostage conditions and intensifies international pressure on Israel. Only losing control of Gaza would decisively break Hamas, a scenario only beginning to emerge.
Iran’s situation is fundamentally different. As a regional power (militarily, politically, and religiously), its position demands regional credibility. Each passing day of conflict severely damages Israeli interests, yet time also harms Iran significantly. Iran’s two core strategies – regional proxies and its nuclear program – hang in the balance. As the conflict progresses unfavorably, the regime risks losing vital assets, increasing the likelihood of internal and external opposition capitalizing on the chaos.
Campaign Management Features
Political Objectives: Declared, Measurable, and Controlled
Clearly defined, measurable war objectives from which the military and other bodies can derive secondary goals are critical to success. In Gaza, the objectives are defeating Hamas militarily and administratively and rescuing all hostages. Hostage recovery is clear and measurable, while defeating Hamas is important yet broadly defined. Precise criteria are needed: What defines Hamas’s defeat? Who will replace Hamas? What security conditions will prevail after Hamas falls?
Such questions help translate broad objectives into clearer, actionable goals. However, political leadership, as far as publicly known, hasn’t fully clarified these matters. Indeed, expecting detailed post-war planning might be overly ambitious initially. Nevertheless, clarifying operational targets over time is essential. The troubling reality, where Hamas monopolized humanitarian aid distribution for nearly 18 months, is an egregious oversight illustrating this point.
In contrast, Iran’s objectives: neutralizing its nuclear project, eliminating missile threats, and weakening regional proxies – are explicit. For years, neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capability appeared almost impossible. Compared to Iran’s military strength, Hamas seems minor. But from a strategic planning perspective, Iran’s campaign objectives are straightforward. Clearly defined, these allow easier synchronization across various operational domains, including air power, intelligence, cyber, and public perception campaigns, all executed remarkably effectively.
In terms of endgame clarity, the Iran scenario is far better defined. However, replacing Iran’s regime, though desirable, isn’t formally declared as a campaign objective. Such a goal is highly complex and should remain aspirational rather than central to success criteria.
War Management: Centralization Versus Decentralization
After defining objectives, execution and oversight begin. The Iranian campaign is overwhelmingly strategic. Targets like nuclear facilities, missile caches, and senior leadership figures directly relate to overarching objectives and are typically binary—achieved or not achieved. Decisions, such as the immediate elimination of senior Iranian military figures, likely require minimal bureaucratic clearance. However, deviations from predefined strategic targets demand top-level authorization. Attacking symbolic governance sites, economic targets like oil fields, or high-level political figures indicates substantial escalation or policy shifts.
Therefore, Iran’s campaign remains relatively straightforward for political oversight. In contrast, Gaza operations involve multiple maneuvering divisions, lengthy chains of command, and highly decentralized decision-making. Such complexity risks tactical failures, critical delays, and misinterpretations of objectives, exemplified by past hesitations regarding humanitarian aid management.
Initiative Versus Reactivity
Although not impulsively launched, the Gaza campaign is undeniably reactive. Israel did not choose initial conditions: large hostage numbers, hostility from the US administration, multi-front warfare, declining international legitimacy, and escalating global anti-Semitism. Netanyahu had to simultaneously manage hostages, northern threats, diplomatic hurdles, ammunition shortages, and domestic skepticism.
In contrast, the proactive nature of the Iranian operation fundamentally improved Israel’s position. Meticulously planned to coincide with Trump’s administration, unprecedented American cooperation emerged, including deception operations and large-scale joint strikes. US involvement significantly enhanced Israeli deterrence internationally. Domestically, political unity and public opinion strongly favor this proactive campaign. Meticulous preparation allows precise messaging control, reflected in Netanyahu’s well-planned public communications.
Conclusion
The Gaza and Iranian campaigns fundamentally differ regarding initial conditions, goals, strategies, and execution. Yet, the critical differentiator remains moral conviction. Historically, global support for Israel increased when perceived as a victim. However, true international and domestic support arises from conviction and decisive action. Those uncertain or hesitant inevitably find reality imposing itself upon them.
Israel’s current demonstration of strength in Iran underscores the necessity of clear planning, synchronized execution, and unwaveringly defined objectives for future campaigns.