Dimensions of the attack on Iran and its declared goals according to an Israeli reading policy

Occupied Jerusalem- The declared goal of the military operation, which Tel Aviv called “Assad’s Roar,” is to overthrow the Iranian regime, while the decision to expand or limit the scope of operations remains linked to the American leadership, amid the possibilities of a regional escalation that includes additional countries and regional powers such as the Houthis in Yemen.

The operation included targeting the regime’s senior leadership and the centers of security and political power, in a gradual path aimed at weakening Iran’s defense capabilities and achieving a radical change in power.

Israel and the United States had carried out strikes on strategic sites in Tehran, which responded with a counter-military operation called “The True Promise 4.”

The strikes create conditions to impose a tight siege on Iran, while continuing to target the regime and security forces, in an effort to bring about possible internal change and achieve long-term strategic goals.

Gradual attack pattern

The operation began on Saturday morning with an intense Israeli air attack targeting Iranian air defenses to ensure air superiority, before the United States intervened to expand the scope of the strikes and enhance their impact, focusing on neutralizing the first Iranian missile barrage and short- and long-range air defense systems.

And he rises “Lion’s Roar” mode in two stages, According to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper’s intelligence and military affairs analyst, Ron Ben Yishai, the first begins with an intense Israeli air attack targeting specific locations inside Tehran, followed by a second phase in which the United States intervenes with its full military weight to expand the scope of the strikes and enhance their impact.

According to Ben Yishai, the central goal of the joint attack is to neutralize the first Iranian missile barrage, which, according to his estimate, was ready to be launched from underground and exposed platforms, in order to prevent a rapid and intense response to the opening strike.

In addition, the operation targeted what are known as “regime targets,” as well as the remaining Iranian air defense systems, including short-range defenses. This path, according to his analysis, aims to secure the airspace in front of long-range American missiles, such as the Tomahawk missiles, and prevent their interception during the subsequent phase of the attack.

He adds that this reality forces the Iranian side to replan and reposition under constant fire, which limits its ability to implement a broad and intense response at the same time.

Therefore, rocket launches towards Israel – according to the same estimate – take place in relatively limited numbers, not exceeding dozens at a time, instead of launching hundreds of rockets at once. It is also implemented continuously, intermittently, and at distant intervals, and not in successive, dense waves as expected in previous scenarios.

He believes that this pattern forces the Israelis to stay for longer periods in protected areas and shelters, but in return it reduces the level of immediate danger, as it reduces the possibility of being exposed to a broad and concentrated missile barrage in a short time.

The decision is in Trump’s hands

For his part, Amos Harel, a military analyst in Haaretz newspaper, said in his estimates of the dimensions of the ongoing war that the declared goal is joint action between Israel and the United States to overthrow the regime in Iran, but completing this path until its end remains dependent on the decision of US President Donald Trump, who holds the keys to expanding the operation or limiting it within a specific ceiling.

Harel pointed out that the United States is leading the bulk of the operations through intense attacks carried out by fighter planes and drones targeting hundreds of targets inside Iran, but the role of the Israeli army – in his opinion – is not secondary. The regime in Tehran sensed the danger of the joint move, and responded with counterattacks that targeted countries that had not officially announced their actual participation in the war, which reflects the widening circle of conflict and the possibility of it quickly sliding into a broader regional escalation.

The Israeli military establishment estimates that the current “Lion’s Roar” operation exceeds in size and complexity the “Rising Lion” attack that occurred in June 2025. Harel believes that assassination attempts and focused strikes should not be viewed as separate operations, but rather are part of a comprehensive, reliable strategy to weaken the regime in preparation for its possible collapse.

On the other hand, he pointed out that Iran clearly increased the level of its response this time, as the response came quickly and on a large scale, and included launching a barrage of missiles towards Israel, in addition to targeting American bases in the Middle East, in a development that reflects the transition of the confrontation to more sensitive levels.

Harel believes that the conflict is likely to become more intense and geographically expanding, with the possibility of additional regional powers entering the front line, including the Houthis in Yemen, who have already issued initial threatening signals. The Israeli army is also preparing for the possibility of launching missiles from other fronts such as Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

Deep repercussions

The same assessment was adopted by the editor-in-chief of the Zaman Yisrael website, David Horowitz, who believes that the direct American-Israeli attack on Iran constitutes a pivotal moment with profound repercussions, not only at the level of the bilateral confrontation, but also on the balances of the international system as a whole.

He pointed out that the goal goes beyond a traditional military strike to an attempt to change the governance structure in Tehran, as Trump promises the Iranians control over their country after the attack, but the Iranian regime has prepared counter-scenarios to confront this path.

He pointed out that the consequences of this confrontation will not only affect both sides of the conflict, but will affect broader equations, as a large part of the stability of the international system has become linked to the outcome of this open engagement.

He stressed that the nature of the latest attack differs from its predecessors in terms of size and scope, as it is not limited to targeting military structures, but rather extends to include sites linked to the senior leadership, which reflects – according to his assessment – a clear trend towards undermining the regime itself, not merely deterring it.

On the other hand, Horwitz raises the possibility that the regime in Tehran has concluded that enduring a broad military strike is less costly than accepting conditions that it considers humiliating or weakening its prestige. Rather, he may be betting – according to the same reading – on his ability to withstand the attack and emerge from the confrontation while maintaining his cohesion, at a time when the United States and Israel may seem unable to translate military superiority into a decisive strategic achievement.

Preparing an internal coup

Maariv newspaper’s military correspondent, Avi Ashkenazi, reviewed the stages of the military strike carried out by Israel in coordination with the United States, noting that the Israeli Air Force and the US Army worked according to a previously prepared operational plan months ago.

He explained that the attack began with a pre-emptive opening strike targeting Iranian air defense systems to ensure air superiority, in conjunction with striking the centers of power in the regime and the security establishment, in preparation for what he described as the possibility of an internal coup by the Iranian people against the Ayatollah’s regime, which has been ruling for 47 years.

The attack was carried out simultaneously on several sites in Tehran, where senior political and security leaders were present, based on precise intelligence efforts by the Israeli military intelligence service to determine the most appropriate moment for the success of the operation. However, the choice of morning instead of night came to achieve the element of tactical surprise once again, despite the extensive preparations made by the Iranians.

Ashkenazi pointed out that the current phase of the campaign represents a race against time for the American and Israeli air forces to strike the missile infrastructure, to prevent any possible launch towards Israel or the American bases and oil fields in the Arabian Gulf.

The third stage – according to his estimate – aims to impose a tight siege on Iran, while continuing to target the regime and security forces, and creating appropriate conditions to push citizens towards carrying out an internal coup, within the framework of what he described as a comprehensive path to weaken the regime and bring about a radical change in power.