Like George W Bush did in Iraq, if Israel breaks Iran it will end up owning the chaos that could ensue

Sky News

21-06-2025

Israelis are good at tactics, poor at strategic vision, it has been observed.
Their campaign against Iran may be a case in point.
Short termism is understandable in a region that is so unpredictable. Why make elaborate plans if they are generally undone by unexpected events? It is a mindset that is familiar to anyone who has lived or worked there.
And it informs policy-making. The Israeli offensive in Gaza is no exception. The Israeli government has never been clear how it will end or what happens the day after that in what remains of the coastal strip. Pressed privately, even senior advisers will admit they simply do not know.
It may seem unfair to call a military operation against Iran that literally took decades of planning short-termist or purely tactical. There was clearly a strategy of astonishing sophistication behind a devastating campaign that has dismantled so much of the enemy's capability.
3:49
But is there a strategic vision beyond that? That is what worries Israel's allies.
It's not as if we've not been here before, time and time again. From Libya to Afghanistan and all points in between we have seen the chaos and carnage that follows governments being changed.
Hundreds of thousands have died. Vast swathes of territory remain mired in turmoil or instability.
Which is where a famous warning sign to American shoppers in the 80s and 90s comes in.
Ahead of the disastrous invasion that would tear Iraq apart, America's defence secretary, Colin Powell, is said to have warned US president George W Bush of the "Pottery Barn rule".
The Pottery Barn was an American furnishings store. Signs among its wares told clumsy customers: "You break it, you own it."
0:36
Bush did not listen to Powell hard enough. His administration would end up breaking Iraq and owning the aftermath in a bloody debacle lasting years.
Israel is not invading Iran, but it is bombing it back to the 80s, or even the 70s, because it is calling for the fall of the government that came to power at the end of that decade.
Iran's leadership is proving resilient so far but we are just a week in. It is a country of 90 million, already riven with social and political discontent. Its system of government is based on factional competition, in which paranoia, suspicion and intense rivalries are the order of the day.
After half a century of authoritarian theocratic rule there are no opposition groups ready to replace the ayatollahs. There may be a powerful sense of social cohesion and a patriotic resentment of outside interference, for plenty of good historic reasons.
But if that is not enough to keep the country together then chaos could ensue. One of the biggest and most consequential nations in the region could descend into violent instability.
That will have been on Israel's watch. If it breaks Iran it will own it even more than America owned the disaster in Iraq.
Iran and Israel are, after all, in the same neighbourhood.
Has Israel thought through the consequences? What is the strategic vision beyond victory?
And if America joins in, as Donald Trump is threatening, is it prepared to share that legacy?