No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran
By Abraham Shmulevich
Editor's note: Abraham Shmulevich, Israeli political scientist, president of the Eastern Partnership Institute. The article expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the view of News.Az.
The recent deployment of two B-2A Spirit strategic bombers to Diego Garcia is far more than a routine rotation. It is a signal. Amid escalating tensions in the region, the choice of the B-2A specifically underscores Washington’s intent to demonstrate its capability to deliver a strike "out of nowhere" — swiftly, precisely, and with minimal chances of interception.
The uniqueness of these aircraft lies not only in their stealth. They are capable of carrying the Massive Ordnance Penetrator — deep-penetration bombs designed to destroy facilities buried tens of meters underground. These are precisely the kinds of targets that would be prioritized in the event of a strike on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure.
News about - No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran
A B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber proceeds to an undisclosed location after completing a mission over Iraq March 27, 2003. Photo: AP
The location of deployment — Diego Garcia — is also crucial. This base allows operational range over key parts of the Middle East and South Asia while remaining beyond the reach of Iran’s retaliatory capabilities. It is a clear deterrence strategy — one rooted in strength.
One of the most powerful elements in the deterrence framework against Tehran remains Israel’s arsenal. Under President Trump, Jerusalem gained access to weapons previously considered exclusive to the U.S., notably the high-yield MOPs capable of penetrating tens of meters of concrete and rock.
While the Biden administration has partially limited arms supplies, Israel, according to multiple sources, has begun discussions on developing domestic equivalents of these weapons. For a nation under constant threat, this is a matter of sovereignty — to no longer rely on an ally's decision at a critical moment.
It may also signal that Israel is preparing for the possibility of acting alone — particularly if Washington again adopts a wait-and-see or ambiguous position. Israeli military doctrine is traditionally based on preemptive strikes. If precise intelligence indicates a critical Iranian breakthrough toward nuclear weapons, a response will be immediate.
News about - No invasion, but pressure: The evolving U.S.-Israeli strategy on Iran
Centrifuges used to enrich uranium at Iran’s nuclear fuel plant in Natanz in 2019. Photo: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
The primary objective of a potential military campaign would not be regime change but the destruction of Tehran’s ability to project power across the region. This is why U.S. and Israeli attention is focused on the IRGC infrastructure, which serves as both the military and ideological core of the Islamic Republic.
This refers not only to bases, depots, and command centers. "Infrastructure" also encompasses supply routes, training hubs for proxy groups, communication nodes, and dual-use facilities — from ports to power grids. The “cutting off the tentacles” concept is applied systematically and has proven effective: strikes on the Houthis, attacks on Hezbollah positions, and isolation of pro-Iranian factions in Syria and Iraq.
The use of venerable strategic bombers like the B-52 is particularly noteworthy. These aircraft not only project raw power but also exert psychological pressure: large, unmistakably visible, and fearsome, they evoke the era of U.S. total air warfare. It’s a message that Washington could revert to such tactics if necessary.
On the diplomatic front, both Washington and Jerusalem are doing their utmost to distinguish between the Iranian people and the regime. Direct messages in Farsi from Israeli leaders and the IDF, propaganda videos, and statements about “friendship with the Iranian people” are part of a broader information campaign.
The aim is clear and pragmatic: a significant segment of Iran’s population opposes the regime, and the military structure must be dismantled without triggering mass national consolidation. The U.S. and Israel seek to deny Tehran the ability to transform external aggression into a source of domestic unity. This explains the cautious, surgical tone of official rhetoric.
Nonetheless, a "hard package" remains on the table: strikes on strategic ports, energy facilities, and nuclear sites. Such a scenario is a last resort — but it exists and is being meticulously planned.
Perhaps the most important conclusion is that neither Washington nor Jerusalem is seeking a ground war with Iran. Politically, logistically, and morally, such a conflict is unfeasible. Even with international support, an invasion of a country with over 80 million people and extremely complex geography would be a disaster — for both attackers and the broader region.
Thus, the focus is on strategic pressure: airstrikes, cyberattacks, dismantling of proxy structures, information operations, and sanctions. Everything aimed at weakening the regime from within without engaging in direct confrontation. The deployment of carrier strike groups to the region reinforces this scenario — it’s about readiness to respond swiftly, not about preparing for a land invasion. It is a “Plan B” should diplomacy ultimately fail.
Tehran’s rhetoric remains in line with its ideological tradition: grandiose declarations, loud threats, and mystical claims of “weapons possessed by no other power.” This plays well with domestic audiences and creates an illusion of control — but in practice, it reveals weakness.<lj-cut>
A recent announcement from the IRGC about a “revolutionary new development” surpassing even the capabilities of global superpowers was largely seen by experts as domestic posturing. In the absence of proof, it is a bluff.
Meanwhile, the ongoing visit of an Israeli delegation to Washington indicates that both sides are approaching a point where diplomacy may be exhausted. If that happens, despite their reluctance, the strategy of limited military force will likely be implemented.
Washington and Jerusalem are playing a high-stakes game: showcasing readiness for action without crossing the red line. They understand that massive destruction in Iran could trigger unpredictable consequences — a surge in anti-American sentiment, a humanitarian crisis, or mass migration.
That is why their bet is on “negotiation from a position of strength,” not on full-scale intervention.
Still, with every step Tehran takes toward escalation, the moment when that line will be crossed draws nearer. And once it is, the reality of the region will change irreversibly.
https://news.az/news/-no-invasion-but-pressure-the-evolving-us-israeli-strategy-on-iran