“The euphoria was short-lived,” wrote Israeli security and military affairs expert Yossi Melman in a rare moment of self-reflection, as the Israeli public absorbs the psychological and material costs of a spiralling conflict with Iran.
When the Israeli government authorised its pre-emptive strikes on Iranian targets earlier this month, it was presented to the public as a necessary step to prevent what Prime Minister Netanyahu described as an “existential threat.” Initial public unity and support for the strikes echoed the past rallied behind the flag, confident in the prowess of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), and trusting in Israel’s unparalleled intelligence networks. But as Iranian missiles struck deep into the Israeli heartland, hitting strategic sites like the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems facility and causing civilian casualties and structural damage unseen in decades, questions began to surface.
In a brutally honest reflection, Melman warned that Israel may have underestimated the Shiite willingness to endure. “Shiites are historically prepared to suffer. They proved this in the eight-year war with Iraq,” he wrote. “We must minimise our losses and turn to Trump to stop this madness through a reasonable agreement or we will find ourselves begging for a ceasefire Iran will refuse.”
A New Kind of War
This is not a war Israel has experienced before. The IDF has, for decades, fought asymmetric opponents in Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon with devastating effect. The damage rarely reached deep into Israeli cities. Now, things have changed. Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles, UAVs, and proxy attacks have demonstrated a capability to hit Israeli infrastructure across the country. Civil defence sirens are now routine in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and even in the Negev. The psychological contract between the Israeli state and its population—that wars are to be fought on others’ land has been broken.
Iran, for its part, is playing a long game. Despite Western predictions of regime instability, Tehran remains firmly in control. The regime has activated a multi-theatre retaliation strategy via allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, dragging Israel into a prolonged state of attrition. Unlike its adversaries, Iran is under no domestic illusion that victory must come quickly. The Shiite ethos of resistance, sacrifice, and glorification of martyrdom has found its real test and purpose on this battlefield.
Israeli Society at a Breaking Point?
One of the most overlooked elements of Israel’s strategic calculus may have been internal cohesion. While Israeli society can mobilise quickly under existential threats, it is also sharply divided. Even before the war, massive protests had rocked the country over judicial reforms, corruption allegations, and inequality. Now, with emergency laws reinstated, press restrictions expanded, and military mobilisation widened, the initial unity is giving way to fatigue and fear.
More worryingly for Tel Aviv, the Israeli populace is not hardened to high casualty rates at home. While the IDF has operated under relative impunity in its external military campaigns, Israeli civilians have largely been shielded from direct consequence. The idea that cities could burn, homes could be hit, and critical infrastructure crippled is a foreign and deeply unsettling reality for many.
The economic ramifications are equally severe. With normal economic activity curtailed, tourism non-existent, and global investors alarmed, the Israeli shekel has plummeted. The government has redirected large portions of its budget toward military operations and civil defence, triggering concerns about long-term sustainability. Startups, once Israel’s pride, are facing closures or relocation, and unemployment has surged.
The Quiet Exodus
Even more quietly—but just as significantly—Israelis are leaving. Before this war, there was already a visible outflow of dual-national Israelis seeking normalcy abroad. Now, that trickle may turn into a flood. With Tel Aviv airport operating under tight security and intermittent closures, foreign embassies have reported increased requests for travel documents and visas. Countries with large Israeli diasporas, countries such as Canada, Germany, the United States, and Australia are seeing a sharp rise in arrivals.
This reflects a broader question: does Israeli society have the stomach for a war of endurance?
Comparing Wills: Shiite Resilience vs Israeli Expectation
Iran’s strategy hinges not just on firepower but on psychological warfare. For decades, the Islamic Republic has cultivated a culture of sacrifice. Its educational institutions, state media, and public commemorations are laced with references to Karbala, martyrdom, and the Islamic duty to resist oppression even at the cost of personal loss. This religiously infused resilience is now fuelling the war effort.
Israel, by contrast, has always prized efficiency, precision, and minimal casualties. It has invested heavily in missile defence systems like Iron Dome and Arrow to prevent suffering. But these systems, while impressive, are not infallible. As losses mount, so too does the societal pressure to find a quick resolution.
To be sure, there remains a bloc of Israelis particularly in the security establishment—who believe this war was inevitable. They argue that Iran’s regional presence and nuclear ambitions would have eventually led to open conflict. For them, now is the time to break Tehran’s strategic momentum, regardless of the cost. Yet that view is beginning to lose support as casualties mount.
Looking Forward
The longer this war continues, the more Israel finds itself on uncertain ground both militarily and morally. Netanyahu’s coalition is still holding, but criticism is growing. Internationally, allies are beginning to question the wisdom of escalation. Domestically, protests have resumed—this time demanding a ceasefire, not regime change.
The outcome may depend less on what happens on the battlefield and more on which nation has the greater capacity for strategic patience and collective suffering. On that front, Tehran may have the upper hand.
As Melman warned, “We may end up begging for a ceasefire and Iran may refuse.” That statement, once unthinkable, now echoes loudly in Israel’s war rooms and public squares.
About the Authors
Khaled Ahmed is a geopolitical columnist for BDMilitary.com specialising in defence, intelligence, and South Asian strategic dynamics. His work focuses on asymmetric warfare, regional deterrence, and conflict studies.
Amir Erez covers Israeli security policy, Levantine conflicts, and defence-industrial trends across the Middle East and South Asia. He brings an insider perspective to Israeli civil-military relations, strategic intelligence, and regional escalation management.
Khaled Ahmed is a seasoned former intelligence analyst and military expert from the Netherlands, bringing over 15 years of specialised experience in operational intelligence, threat analysis, and strategic defence planning. Having served in high-level, classified roles within Dutch military intelligence, he possesses rare expertise in European security architecture, NATO doctrine, and asymmetric warfare. Khaled’s deep operational insight and international perspective enable him to deliver precision-driven intelligence analysis and forward-looking strategic forecasts. A trusted contributor to high-level risk assessments and security briefings, he offers readers clarity on complex defence and security challenges. Khaled leads the National Security and Fact Analysis sections at BDMilitary. He holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, and is fluent in Dutch, French, and Arabic — combining linguistic dexterity with operational expertise to analyse security issues across cultures and regions.
