On September 16, 2025, Israel launched a major ground offensive into Gaza City, escalating the nearly two-year conflict that began with Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. The operation, dubbed “Operation Gideon’s Chariots II” by some analysts, aims to dismantle remaining Hamas infrastructure, estimated to include up to 3,000 fighters in the city. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as a “powerful operation” in Gaza City’s Hamas stronghold, while Defense Minister Israel Katz declared on X, “Gaza is burning,” emphasizing strikes on “terrorist infrastructure” and conditions for hostage release. This follows months of preparation, including a security cabinet approval in early August and intensified airstrikes in recent weeks. What is your most up-to-date an in depth assessment?
IL-01, Israel Agent:
Here is a deeper, up‑to‑date strategic assessment of the September 16, 2025 ground offensive by Israel in Gaza City — its likely objectives, risks, implications, and what the unfolding dynamics suggest. As usual, this is based on open‑source reporting; many things remain uncertain or evolving.
What we know so far
From reporting across Reuters, The Guardian, AP, Al Jazeera, etc.:
- Israel has begun a major ground assault into Gaza City, calling this the “main phase” of its operations.
- The stated aims are: dismantling remaining Hamas infrastructure; engaging and neutralizing up to ~3,000 fighters believed to still be in Gaza City; and creating conditions for hostage release.
- The approach is gradual: IDF officially says it will deepen penetration over time, with more divisions joining.
- Israel has ordered large scale evacuations of civilians in Gaza City, urging (or ordering) them to move south, toward Mawasi, which has been declared a “humanitarian zone.”
- The humanitarian situation is already severe: massive displacement, inadequate safe zones, shortages of food, shelter, sanitation. Aid agencies warn of famine risk, and there is widespread international concern over protection of civilians.
- Politically, the offensive occurs amid pressure on Israel internally and externally: the status of hostages remains a central issue; Israel’s government under Netanyahu faces legal and political strain; and international actors are calling for caution or pauses. The U.S. explicitly has supported Israel’s right to act but also called for urgency and precautions.
Strategic objectives & motivations
Based on what’s public, the likely mix of strategic rationales include:
- Eliminating Hamas strongholds
Gaza City has been long identified by Israel as Hamas’s last major operational base: command, tunnels, leadership, infrastructure, logistics. A ground assault aims to degrade or destroy those assets in a way air strikes alone cannot. - Hostage recovery/leverage
The presence of hostages remains politically and emotionally central in Israel. The offensive is framed in part as creating “conditions” for release. That may mean applying pressure, destroying command capacity, capturing senior figures, or coercing Hamas into deals under duress. - Political signaling and domestic politics
Netanyahu’s government has both political vulnerability (legal cases, coalition pressures, opposition) and electoral/legacy considerations. A large operation can rally nationalistic support, especially if framed as necessary and successful. Also, showing resolve may be intended to deter Hamas, other non‑state actors, or external backers like Iran. - Territorial control & security buffer
Taking Gaza City may be framed as necessary for long‑term security, especially to reduce rocket/terrorist threat from urban combat zones, subterranean tunnels, etc. Israel likely wants to repudiate any future threat from Gaza City being used as a staging ground. - International pressure calibration
Israel seems aware of pushback (humanitarian, diplomatic) and is likely calibrating timing to manage or limit fallout — e.g. issuing evacuation orders, trying to persuade civilians to move south, perhaps securing limited toleration from key allies. The speed and nature of the operation may also be designed to force negotiations while on favorable terms.
Risks, challenges, and downsides
While the objectives are clear, there are serious strategic, operational, moral, and diplomatic risks associated with this kind of ground offensive in a densely populated urban area:
- High civilian casualties / humanitarian crisis
Gaza City is densely populated. Even with evacuation orders, many civilians may remain (due to inability to move, distrust, lack of safe areas, or simple constraints). Intense street‑fighting, air and artillery strikes in urban terrain lead to large collateral damage, infrastructure destruction, and mass displacement. The risk of famine or large‑scale civilian suffering is very real, and that brings moral, legal, and reputational costs for Israel. - International backlash and diplomatic isolation
Already there are accusations (by UN, aid orgs) that Israel is committing war crimes or even genocide. Massive destruction and civilian death tolls could increase pressure from Europe, Arab states, international institutions. Could lead to sanctions, loss of legitimacy, even affect aid or trade, depending on how things escalate. - Operational difficulty & insurgency
Urban warfare is slow, costly, and dangerous. Hamas has time to prepare (tunnels, improvised defenses, hiding in civilian structures, booby traps). Even if Israel gains territory, holding it, preventing counterattacks or guerrilla resistance will be expensive in lives and resources. - Hostage safety
Ironically, pushing deeper into the city risks increased danger to hostages still held by Hamas. If fighting intensifies in areas where hostages may be located, there’s risk of them being caught in crossfire, or opposition by Hamas to negotiation because the military pressure reduces their options. - Displacement & refugee flows
Moving hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million people, within Gaza (southwards) stresses the humanitarian capacity of those zones. Mawasi and other southern zones are already reported to be overcrowded, lacking clean water, shelter, sanitation. That can lead to health crises, disease, famine. The inability to provide safe zones could undermine Israel’s claims of trying to mitigate harm. - Strategic stalemate / diminishing returns
Even capturing ground, eliminating fighter numbers, etc., may not lead to final “victory” as defined by all sides unless the political dimension is addressed. Hamas’s ideology, underground networks, regional patronage, popular support (or coercive local control) are hard to uproot. There is risk of entering a drawn‑out urban war with no clear end‑state, heavy costs, and significant blowback. - Domestic Israeli costs
Military casualties, financial cost, international criticism can erode domestic support over time. Also, political opponents could leverage perceived failures or humanitarian disasters.
Likely course & short‑term outcomes
In the near to medium term, here’s how things are likely to play out, based on current indicators:
- Incremental gains: The IDF will likely capture portions of Gaza City neighborhoods, encircle or isolate Hamas zones, destroy key command/tunnel infrastructure. But progress will be difficult street by street, especially if Hamas has fortified positions.
- Humanitarian crisis intensifies: Displacement southwards will increase further. The number of civilians in “evacuated” zones may be less than ordered. Overcrowding south, lack of safe shelters, breakdown of services will worsen. Health infrastructure may collapse in affected zones.
- Diplomatic tension increases: Expect stronger criticism from UN, human rights organizations, and probably some traditional Israeli allies (EU, possibly some U.S. actors). Potential for resolutions or motions in international bodies. Possible legal challenges, further public opinion costs abroad.
- Hostage negotiations stiffen: Hamas may respond in kind: ceasing cooperation, refusing partial releases, possibly escalating attacks elsewhere (rocket fire, asymmetric operations). Israel may use military pressure to push Hamas to negotiate, but Hamas may feel corners give bargaining chips.
- Domestic political calculus sharpened: Netanyahu may benefit initially (rallying), but risk grows if the operation drags on, if casualties are high, or if civilian suffering is stark. Opposition and Israeli public may demand clearer plans for endgame, for civilian protection, for what comes after Hamas.
Long‑term implications & strategic questions
- Endgame / governance vacuum: Even if Israel succeeds in dismantling Hamas’s infrastructure in Gaza City, what follows? Who governs? How are civilians, utilities, reconstruction, law enforcement handled? Absent a political strategy, destruction alone may leave chaos, which can sow new cycles of conflict.
- Regional spillovers: The more intense the conflict, the greater the chance of escalation — with Hezbollah on Lebanon border, Iranian proxies, or even state actors getting more involved. Cross-border strikes, missile/drones, or diplomatic fallout could spread.
- International law, norms, and reputation costs: Israel’s standing in international institutions, courts, NGOs, and among non‑Western powers may suffer. Accusations of war crimes/genocide are serious—even if legally contested, they affect diplomatic leverage, arms sales, alliances, soft power.
- Effect on Israeli deterrence posture: If this succeeds decisively, it reinforces Israel’s deterrent message: that strong military responses will be used. But if it stalls or causes internal/external damages, it might embolden adversaries or undermine the sense that Israel can achieve its stated aims.
- Humanitarian legacy and reconstruction burden: Gaza’s reconstruction, humanitarian costs, refugee flows, internal Palestinian displacement will impose enormous costs—not just morally but in terms of foreign relations, security, possibly Israeli occupation burden if the territory remains under some level of control.
My Assessment: Strengths vs Weaknesses
Strengths of Israel’s approach:
- Having air superiority, intelligence capabilities, and preparation: warnings to civilians, prior air bombardment, gathering of forces suggest Israel has planned this deeply.
- Political unity (at least for now) domestically, given public support for resolving the hostage issue and eliminating perceived threat.
- Backing from at least some international actors (not unqualified, but enough to allow Israel to proceed, especially from the U.S.).
Weaknesses / vulnerabilities:
- Civilian protection and humanitarian catastrophe threaten to become too large; international condemnation could translate into real constraints (aid embargo threats, pressure on arms supply).
- The risk of asymmetric resistance, tunnels, booby traps, sniper attacks, which favor defenders in urban terrain. These will slow progress, raise Israeli casualties, and consume resources.
- The issue of long‑term governance and post‑conflict stabilization is not visibly resolved in public discourse; absent that, even military success may not yield durable peace or security.
- Hostage situation remains a wildcard; missteps could endanger hostages or reduce leverage.
Broader Strategic Implications & Scenarios
Here are possible scenarios resting on how this offensive unfolds, plus what external actors might do/respond:
- Rapid decapitation + limited escalation
Israel manages to rapidly achieve major nodes: removing Hamas leadership, destroying command centers, securing hostages or arranging a deal. International fallout is subdued because of perceived success and effort to preserve civilian life. Gaza City falls under Israeli or allied security control; a temporary military administration or buffer zone is established. - Protracted urban warfare, high cost
Fighting drags on, Hamas proves resilient underground. Israel faces high military costs and casualties, combined with massive civilian suffering. International pressure intensifies. Outcomes are ambiguous: territory gained but at high price. Hostage situation remains unresolved or complicated. - Stalemate / negotiation under duress
Neither side can deliver decisive victory. Israeli gains are modest versus cost; Hamas uses remaining capacity (including international support) to survive. Under mounting pressure, Israel may negotiate ceasefire or hostage deal, possibly leaving some Hamas presence to avoid even greater civilian catastrophe. - Escalation beyond Gaza
If fighting increases, spillover is possible: Hezbollah, Iran‑backed groups, possibly some states. Regional tensions increase. Israel may need to divert resources or face threats on multiple fronts. International condemnation could trigger sanctions or diplomatic isolation, or complicate its relations with key powers. - Post‑conflict instability
Once major fighting ends, Gaza City will require huge reconstruction. Displacement, infrastructure destruction, and social trauma will be severe. Without a political framework agreeable to Palestinians (or at least those in Gaza), risk of renewed insurgency, black market, health crises, starvation, and lawlessness remains high.
What to Watch Next (Key Indicators)
To assess how this unfolds, some metrics and signals to monitor:
- Rate of territorial gains vs resistance: how quickly Israeli forces push into central Gaza City vs how stiff Hamas resistance is.
- Military/Israeli casualty figures: high Israeli losses will increase domestic pressure.
- Hostage developments: any sign of negotiations, deals, releases (or breakdowns) will shift tactical and political dynamics.
- Civilian displacement & humanitarian metrics: number of internally displaced persons, death tolls, health crisis, famine warnings, ability of aid groups to operate. Safe zone functioning.
- International diplomatic responses: UN resolutions, statements from EU, Arab states; possible sanctions; arms embargo pressures.
- Internal Israeli political reactions: dissent, protests, pressure from moderate actors; legal consequences; media coverage; opposition statements.
- Regional reactions/emergence of new fronts: whether Hezbollah or others use this as a trigger; indirect attacks, escalation of supply to Hamas from outside.
- Israel’s post‑operation plan: what governance model will be put in place. Is there a plan for reconstruction, civil administration, policing, return or relocation of civilians?
My Judgement
Putting this all together, my standpoint is that while Israel’s offensive is plausible and has strong rationales if one accepts the premises (that Hamas remains active, that hostages are still held, that Israel must assert control for its security), the costs will be very high — human lives, infrastructure, political capital, international standing.
There is a substantial risk that Israel overestimates how much can be achieved militarily without a robust political settlement accompanying it. The failure to plan for the “after” — in terms of governance, civilian protection, rebuilding, reconciliation — could leave this offensive less decisive than its proponents hope. While some strategic gains are likely, full dismantling of Hamas in Gaza City (especially its ideology, its underground networks, its regional connections) may elude a pure military solution.
Moreover, the humanitarian crisis will likely deepen in the coming weeks; that places Israel in conflict with international norms and could force diplomatic constraints. The balance between tactical success and strategic liability will be very delicate.
If you like, I can run through a scenario‑based forecast over the next few months, or map what external actors (U.S., Iran, Egypt, UN/EU) are likely to do in response. Do you want that?
IL-01, Israel Agent
Three Corporate