The U.S., Iran and the Race for Strategic Surprise
As conflict looms and the president prepares to make the final call, Israeli officials suspect Tehran might try to strike first
Tensions are rising between the U.S., Iran, and Israel as military buildups continue, and the next move could catch everyone off guard. Israeli officials worry about a possible Iranian first strike, yet the more plausible surprise may come from Washington itself. More on this below.
Key developments
Israel’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder, has been in Washington this week, briefing senior officials at the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House on specific intelligence regarding Iran, amid rising concern over a possible strike.
Iran’s state media reports that the military has added 1,000 “strategic” drones to its arsenal, developed with the Defense Ministry and based on “lessons” from the recent 12-Day War.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Iran’s forces are “with a finger on the trigger,” claiming Tehran can now respond harder, and more effectively.
According to U.S. and European officials cited by the New York Times, Washington has demanded that Iran fully halt uranium enrichment, limit its ballistic missile program, and end support for regional proxies. Those talks have stalled, with no sign Iran intends to comply with the American terms.
On Strategic Surprise
One of the topics I study and explore with students is strategic surprise. Strategic surprise rarely happens out of nowhere — and when it does, it is often not defined by timing, but by scale, method, and results. The Middle East is known for these sudden and dramatic shifts. Think of the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War — and how that conflict ultimately led to at least one peace treaty. More recently, October 7, 2023. Or Israel’s decapitation of Hezbollah’s leadership and capabilities, pagers included.
Absolute surprises are very rare. Strategic surprises usually occur not in a vacuum, but within an existing conflict — sometimes not violent, but always infused with the potential for violence to erupt.
As the strategic surprise scholar Michael Handel notes, it is common to encounter warnings that either trigger no real alert (as on October 7), or provoke some degree of alert, as in 1967 — yet the surprise still occurs.
We are now facing one such moment, when conflict seems almost inevitable. Iran may feel cornered and consider extreme actions, while the U.S. could use surprise to amplify its superiority and achieve a more effective and strategic outcome. Israel awaits President Trump’s decision, knowing he retains the power to call off a strike, even as it prepares for the possibility of an Iranian attack.
Surprise is often the weapon of the weaker side. The weak are drawn to surprise because it offers a way to achieve what they cannot through conventional war. By taking the initiative, they seek to offset their inherent deficiencies. And the interesting thing is that even when both sides are clearly on a path to conflict — think Iran and Israel in June 2025 — surprise still works. Whether in methods, targets, scope, or timing, it remains one of the most effective tools, perhaps the most effective, for generating advantage.
When the weaker side initiates a surprise, it may achieve real — sometimes impressive — tactical gains. But its assumptions about the results tend to be wildly optimistic (think Japan and Pearl Harbor). The fundamental advantages of the stronger side usually reassert themselves and mitigate or erase the effects of the initial shock.
Now apply this framework to the current Iran–U.S.–Israel dynamic.
