With Iranian Attack Successfully Intercepted, Israel Weighs Next Moves in Multi-Front War

Experts say the Iranian attack likely led Israel to delay its planned ground invasion into Rafah

After successfully intercepting nearly all of the 300 drones and missiles launched by Iran in the country’s unprecedented attack on Israel on Saturday, Israel is weighing the next moves, both toward Iran and in the ongoing war in Gaza. Prior to the Iranian attack, Israel had plans to launch a ground operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Those plans are now on hold, although Israel is continuing airstrikes in Gaza.

Israel’s military spokesperson has refused to comment on the army’s future plans. The Media Line spoke with various Israeli military experts about the Iranian attack’s impact on Israel’s actions on the southern front and on the development of the war.

Israel Ziv, a retired major general for Israel, told The Media Line that the recent Iranian attack is encouraging news for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

“He was pushed into a desperate position where he lost control over the territory and most of his terror army,” Ziv said. “Unfortunately, he still succeeds in maintaining the participation of Hizbullah, but the fact that Iran is getting involved—for him, it’s a huge deal.”

Israeli military expert David Sharp called the Iranian attack “inspiration for Hamas.” “It is reflected in its enthusiasm, its aggressiveness and, of course, position in the negotiations too,” Sharp told The Media Line.

Eyal Zisser, who teaches Middle Eastern history at Tel Aviv University and serves as the university’s vice rector, told The Media Line that Iranian support for Hamas, while still active, is subsiding.

“They can’t send any more money and no ammunition,” he said.

He argued that the Iranian attack should not disrupt Israel’s plans for a ground invasion in Rafah, noting that the air forces needed to defend against Iran are separate from the ground forces that would be involved in Gaza.

Sharp said that the Iranian strike has probably already changed Israel’s plans.

“If not for the Iranian affairs, the first preparatory stages of the operation in Rafah probably should have already begun. However, since priorities changed, this was postponed,” he said.

The possibility of war with Iran is also shaping the Gaza war by giving Hamas the opportunity to take a more hard-line stance in the hostage negotiations with Israel, Sharp said.

“When Sinwar realized that Iran could possibly get involved in the conflict, maybe even in a major way, he had no reason to compromise,” he explained. “He had to increase his demands.”

Ziv expressed his opinion that Hamas is not interested in negotiating with Israel around a potential hostage return. Given the impossibility of negotiating with Hamas, he said, the other option is to turn Gaza over to Fatah control.

Fatah, Hamas’ main political rival, is the dominant party in the Palestinian Authority. Compared to Hamas, Fatah is seen as more willing to cooperate with Israel and less interested in armed struggle.

“It’s a risk, but I believe it’s our only chance to get the hostages back,” Ziv said of the prospect of bringing Fatah to power in Gaza.

Sharp said that Israel’s shift in focus to the Iran attack will not have much impact on Hamas’ military plans.

“When it comes to the operation in Rafah, Hamas had ample time to prepare for it, so an additional day has no significant impact,” he said. “The army takes action where necessary without giving Hamas any breaks.”

Regardless of the timing of the Rafah operation, questions remain about whether a ground invasion in Rafah is strategic to begin with.

Four Hamas battalions are thought to remain in Rafah. In the event that Israel evacuates civilians from Rafah in order to begin a ground operation, the Hamas battalions might simply leave along with the civilians. Even if the battalions do stay in Rafah and are defeated by Israel, that would not constitute a long-term victory, Ziv said.

“We will fight, and we will dismantle these other four like the 20 before, but it will take us two to three weeks,” he said. “What’s next? We will go out just like we did from Khan Yunis and other places, and Hamas will return. So what have we won?”

Unless Israel brings a ruling power to Gaza that will replace Hamas, a ground invasion in Rafah will be of little strategic significance, Ziv said.

With Israel confronting the possibility of a three-front war, facing threats from Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran, military experts are divided as to what should be Israel’s next move.

Ziv said that starting a war with Iran would be a strategic mistake for Israel.

“It is a totally different war—much more difficult,” he said.

Sharp, on the other hand, believes that Israel possesses sufficient military strength to confront all three fronts.

“What we are witnessing is not as severe as the worst-case scenarios that were anticipated, even at the behest of Israel,” he said. “A war with Iran could involve long-range missile exchanges rather than a land war. On the other hand, a major conflict with Hizbullah would require an active and swift ground offensive in addition to airstrikes. However, Israel was aware that it might have to fight on multiple fronts if necessary and would seize appropriate opportunities.”

Ziv noted that Hizbullah’s military capabilities are significantly weaker than they once were because of continued Israeli strikes.

He said that lack of popular support for a war between Lebanon and Israel is also hampering Hizbullah.

“They lost faith internally because they were dragging Lebanon to a war in Gaza,” he said. “Why would any Lebanese care about solidarity with somebody in Khan Yunis?”

Notably, several Arab countries ended up supporting Israel when the imminence of the Iranian attack became clear.

“This overnight build-up and presence of this coalition is a huge political and strategic achievement that is much more important than any other thing for the region itself and for the stability to contain Iran and its proxies,” Ziv said. “Even in the next steps we take against Hamas and others, we must always see the good of that coalition in front of our eyes.”