In an interview with Jerusalem Post, Retired Major General Tal Kelman, a former high-ranking Israeli Air Force officer with extensive experience in strategic planning and Iran-focused operations, has revealed that the prospect of a surprise attack from Iran remains one of his deepest concerns. He emphasized that such an assault, particularly one achieving tactical surprise, could dramatically alter the course of any conflict, drawing directly from lessons of recent engagements where initial strikes proved decisive.
Kelman, who accumulated over 6,000 flight hours in fighter aircraft including the F-35 and led the IDF’s J5 strategic planning directorate, described the Iranian regime as fundamentally driven by an extreme fundamentalist ideology that actively seeks Israel’s destruction while diverting vast resources to proxies, ballistic missiles, and nuclear ambitions rather than its own people. He stressed that Israel has no inherent conflict with the Iranian population itself, noting historical ties before 1979 and envisioning potential advanced cooperation under a different government. However, the current regime’s actions and declarations make it the core threat, necessitating efforts to weaken and restrain it while creating conditions for eventual internal change.
In discussing Iran’s resilience, Kelman pointed out the regime’s unique structure, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) overshadows traditional military forces with around two million affiliates and suppresses any organized opposition. He observed declining public support since riots in 2009, with periodic unrest every few years, yet expressed skepticism that external factors like water shortages or direct military action alone would topple it quickly. Change, he argued, must ultimately come from within, though he hoped it would occur for a more positive Middle East.
Kelman highlighted the evolving US-Israel military relationship as a counterbalance, describing it as at its historical peak, bolstered by Israel’s shift to US Central Command (CENTCOM) post-Abraham Accords. This alignment allows shared adversaries and goals, fostering close operational ties—even extending to everyday tools like WhatsApp groups among commanders. He cited joint defenses during Iran’s 2024 attacks and subsequent operations against nuclear facilities as evidence of deep coordination that influenced policymakers despite political tensions.
On risk perceptions, Kelman contrasted Israel’s more aggressive operational posture against Iran and its proxies with America’s caution shaped by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. He contended that Iranians prioritize regime survival and avoid direct war with the US superpower, leading to largely symbolic retaliations even after significant provocations like targeted killings or strikes. This dynamic, he suggested, permits bolder actions with managed risks when backed by credible deterrence.
Transitioning to broader strategic shifts, Kelman portrayed the post-October 7 Middle East as a “tower of cards” scattered in the air, questioning whether it would revert to pre-war patterns or enable a new order through coordinated Israeli-US plays. He warned of a rising Muslim Brotherhood axis involving Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt—beyond just Hamas—as a persistent danger even if specific groups are diminished….See MoreÂ
Leave a Reply