As Israel marks the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War this week, we should all remember the horrific war that broke out on that fateful holiday in 1973, resulting in thousands of young Israelis losing the lives.
The war caught Israel completely off guard because Israeli intelligence analysts had been wedded to a paradigm that had them convinced war was very unlikely
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
In the wake of that war, Israel learned that it must have a humble approach to assessing the enemy's intentions and be constantly on guard.
But the more important lesson is that we must always second guess the intelligence assessment and strategic analyses, as well as the underlying paradigms that guide our national security approach. This time, the enemy is Iran.
Just two weeks ago Iran launched a surprise attack on Saudi Arabia's major oil installations, disrupting the world's energy market and causing a spike in oil prices.
But the real story behind this Iranian attack was that it came out of the blue, both in a political and military sense. The Saudis, the Americans, and most likely America's allies – no one had anticipated that Iranian attack.
Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorism as a means of advancing its regional interests: Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The world has been watching its every move, but despite this – it managed to pull off this attack without anyone noticing or getting an early indication.
The world was wedded to a paradigm that ruled out the possibility of Iran making such a brazen move.
This flawed paradigm's underlying rationale was that Iran would be restrained for several reasons
First, because it wanted to move forward with its nuclear program without attracting too much attention. Second, because it wanted to get the US sanctions lifted and thus would not want a flare-up with Washington at this point. Third, because it preferred to use proxies rather that engage in activities that could be traced directly to its territory, as it has been doing in other areas in the Middle East. And fourth, because it wanted to continue with a tactical approach based on terrorism, rather than take full-fledged military action that would be interpreted as a declaration of war and result in an all-out confrontation.
Those four reasons served as the foundation for the flawed paradigm and had analysts convinced Iran would not act in such a daring manner, and especially not before it got nuclear weapons.
They were convinced it would tread carefully so that it could slowly but surely move toward its goals, just like it gradually increased its presence in Syria during the eight-year civil war until Israel started checking its influence and slowing its expansion.
That paradigm has exploded in our face in recent months. First, there were the mysterious attacks on oil tankers in the region. Then, there were attempted drone attacks against Israel. And now, in light of the silence in Washington, Iran is engaged in direct confrontation.
This may turn out to be a disastrous move on the part of Tehran, but it reflects the strategic predicament it has found itself as of late in light of the US sanctions. Regardless, the moves underscore a major shift in direction on the part of the ayatollah regime.
Iran knows that Israel does not turn the other cheek, unlike the Saudis and Americans. That said, policymakers in Jerusalem must wake up and realize that the threat posed by Iran is not just about the nuclear program but also about its willingness to carry out direct military action.
