By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the wake of the October 7th Hamas attack, Israel made the decision to eliminate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, viewing him as the primary architect of the assault. This strategic objective, along with the disruption of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, culminated in a joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign that began on February 28th. The operation, codenamed “Operation Roaring Lion” by Israel and “Epic Fury” by the United States, targeted Khamenei and other high-ranking Iranian officials, marking a significant escalation in response to the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. Detailed planning for this operation commenced after Israel’s twelve-day conflict with Iran in June 2025, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving the final order in November of that year.
Read the original article here
Following the devastating attacks on October 7th, a significant decision was made within Israel: to target Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other masterminds from Hamas and Hezbollah deemed responsible. This pivotal resolution appears to have been solidified in the immediate days after the assault, indicating a swift and decisive shift in strategic thinking.
While the initial decision was swift, the more detailed planning for what Israel internally termed “Operation Roaring Lion” and the United States referred to as “Epic Fury” only began after a prolonged conflict between Israel and Iran in June of 2025. It was not until November of that same year that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu officially sanctioned the operation, suggesting a period of intense preparation and deliberation before any concrete action could be contemplated.
The October 7th attack, a deeply traumatic event, is widely seen as a monumental miscalculation on the part of Iran and its allies. This event, often compared to a modern-day Pearl Harbor, has undeniably ushered in a cascade of global consequences, fundamentally altering the geopolitical landscape.
The rationale behind Israel’s response is understandable when considering the scale of the atrocities. Allowing a neighboring entity to perpetrate such violence, including the killing and kidnapping of over a thousand citizens, without severe repercussions would be unthinkable. Gaza is seen as one avenue for retribution, but targeting the leadership in Iran is viewed as another, more direct response.
The impact of October 7th on Iran’s proxies, particularly Hamas, is also a point of contemplation. Given that Iran served as a primary financial backer for these operations within Israeli territory, the leaders of Hamas likely anticipated a strong reaction, though the magnitude of Israel’s subsequent actions may have exceeded their expectations.
From a liberal reform Jewish perspective, the situation is complex. It’s suggested that Prime Minister Netanyahu, facing potential removal from power due to corruption allegations, may have downplayed intelligence regarding the impending attack, only to leverage the aftermath for political gain. While the October 7th attack itself is universally condemned as abhorrent and barbaric, it is also emphasized that the majority of Israelis do not condone the current trajectory of events.
This period is characterized by a feeling that Netanyahu has effectively used October 7th as his “9/11,” exploiting the situation to advance the agenda of his right-wing supporters, an agenda not necessarily supported by the broader Israeli population. The hope is that this distinction will be understood.
There’s a perspective that suggests targeting conscription centers within Iran could be an effective strategy. The belief is that by undermining the regime’s ability to forcibly conscript individuals, their ability to sustain themselves would be significantly diminished, potentially leading to their downfall during future protests.
The idea that Iran’s actions on October 7th were allowed to occur, with intelligence potentially known beforehand by Mossad, is a recurring theme. This raises questions about the motivations behind not preventing the attack, potentially to draw Iran into a protracted proxy war, thereby depleting its resources and stretching its involvement with conflicts like the one in Ukraine.
The strategic aim, from this viewpoint, would be to foster internal unrest within Iran and make it more likely for its populace to overthrow the government. However, the current situation, marked by mass civilian casualties, is seen as far from perfect, especially given the lack of widespread armament among the general population, placing the onus on security forces to side with the public.
The notion that Israel may have intentionally allowed the attack to happen, despite having prior knowledge, fuels speculation that it was a calculated move to generate public outrage and justify a wider conflict. This perspective also notes that historically, Mossad has been hesitant to assassinate the Supreme Leader due to concerns about regional instability, suggesting that the current decision carries significant weight.
The naming of the operations also draws attention. “Operation Roaring Lion” is considered a more fitting and less “cringe-ass” moniker than the United States’ “Epic Fury,” with some finding the latter to be indicative of insecure machismo.
The October 7th attack is unequivocally seen as a massive strategic blunder for Iran and its allies, despite any perceived tactical victories. Before this event, a predictable pattern of engagement existed between Israel and its adversaries, often referred to as “mowing the lawn.” Iran, through its proxies, held a position of geopolitical strength, effectively deterring Israel from undertaking more aggressive actions.
However, by initiating the October 7th attacks, Iran disrupted this delicate balance. Israel shifted to a total war footing, aiming to dismantle not only Hamas but also Hezbollah and other allied groups. This shift, aided by the US, has weakened Iran’s proxy network and emboldened Israel to pursue more direct actions against Iran, including assassinations of IRGC leadership and the dismantling of its air defense systems.
The domino effect of these actions is evident, with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syrian proxies significantly weakened, and Iran itself now facing direct attacks. The timing of Russia’s struggles, particularly its diminished capacity to support Iran in Syria due to the Ukraine war, is also a contributing factor.
Furthermore, Iran’s attempt to prevent normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel has backfired. While Saudi Arabia initially could not openly support Israel due to the conflict in Gaza, a weakened Iran could pave the way for a strengthened alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel, a long-held ambition for the region.
The idea that Iran preventing Saudi-Israel normalization is a consequence of October 7th highlights the far-reaching ramifications of the attack. Should Iran further escalate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, it is predicted that there would be severe repercussions from all sides, including from China. The sentiment of “Never again” is gaining renewed and profound meaning.
While the attack on October 7th was a tactical success for Hamas in terms of disruption, it has proven to be a catastrophic strategic error, leading to the widespread destruction of their own territory and potentially similar consequences for Iran.
The question of accountability for Netanyahu’s alleged failure to prevent the attack is also raised, contrasting with the state of Hamas leadership. The notion that Israel’s response constitutes war crimes, given the alleged extensive civilian casualties inflicted by Israel, is a point of contention.
The initial premise that Iran was solely responsible for the kidnappings on October 7th is also challenged, with some recalling a different narrative of the events. The scale of deaths attributed to Iran in subsequent “riots” is also questioned, with estimates far exceeding initial figures.
The argument that Israel sacrificed its own citizens for political reasons is presented, stemming from the belief that intelligence regarding the impending attack was ignored, enabling the events to unfold and providing Netanyahu with a justification for war. The effectiveness of intelligence agencies like Mossad is questioned in light of their alleged inability to foresee or prevent such an attack.
The idea that Hamas and Hezbollah were “forcefully conscripted” into attacking Israel is also debated, with the understanding that Iran often works with proxies who share sympathetic views. The involvement of figures like Pahlavi is also questioned, with doubts expressed about the willingness of Iranians to accept a foreign leader, emphasizing the importance of self-determination.
Finally, the potential targeting of conscription centers is revisited, with the understanding that while symbolic, it might not be the most effective means of stopping conscription itself, as more such centers could be established if necessary.