I just heard a commentator, I don't know his name, say on NPR that Israel is planning a "massive attack" on Iran. If true, I believe that to be a massive mistake. 

I took "massive" to mean an attack on the entire country, on Tehran, on civilians, not surgical strikes on the leadership, clerical, governmental, and military, and the nuclear facilities. Israel has a bird in hand. They have not yet responded to Iran's response to Israel's attack, you know, the tit for tat about a month ago. Israel has a tat. 

The commentator was asked by the host why Netanyahu's government wouldn't take the happy occasion of Yahya Sinwar's changed status to strike a comprehensive deal, that is, return of hostages and ceasefire among Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran.

He gave two answers. The first was "hubris", the second was Netanyahu's personal and political interests. The latter has been discussed frequently, so what was new to me was "hubris".

The commentator said Israel has had "some success" ("some"?) Hamas is not done-done, just done. Gaza is nearly destroyed. On the northern front, Israel has dealt shattering blows to the leadership and, as important, to the psyches of Hezbollah and its Iranian minders. They are now on the ground in Lebanon and are bombing regularly. Hezbollah is on the run and they're running scared. Iran to Israel's far east is deeply spooked. North of Lebanon is Syria, in on-going civil war, and one of the most fragile states on the planet.

Gaza in the southwest is out of service. The south is Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel. North of Israel, Lebanon, a sovereign country, doesn't want the headache and danger that Hezbollah poses.

To Israel's immediate east is Jordan, with whom Israel has a peace treaty. South of Jordan is the massive land mass of Saudi Arabia, arch enemy of Shia Iran and on Saudi Arabia's southern tail is Yemen, controlled by Shia Houthis.

All of which is to ask "Why is Israel planning a massive attack on Iran?" To which the NPR commentator gave his answers, the second of which is the chalk. I could see hubris. In another people, I could see hubris leading to a "massive attack" on an existential enemy. I don't really see hubris in the Jewish people in the Israeli state. They are thoughtful and calculating, not adventurers. They full well understand their size, their isolation in the region and in the world. Hubris is Robert E. Lee invading Pennsylvania. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate war cabinet was dazzled by the daring vision, intoxicated on Lee's military acumen. He had had "some success". 

It was a desperate gamble. Lee framed it as a think-outside-the-box move with chessboard-upsetting potential. But Lee knew he and the South were doomed if things kept on keeping on. Lee knew that it was just a matter of time.

Israel is not in any manner whatsoever in the Confederate States of America's situation in July of 1863. To launch a "massive attack" on Iran now would be beyond hubris into idiocy. Israel must press, press, press Iran. Step-stone the press, you have a tat that Iran knows you owe them. Use your tat in hand to castrate the Republican Guards--TAKE THEM OUT!--make a pass at Ayatollah Khamenei, give him an ear piercing. You have Iranian operatives in Lebanon literally perspiring in fear, you know that Khamenei and those closest to him fear you are going to assassinate him. USE that fear as a chit with your tat. Do NOT launch a massive attack on the entire nation of Iran.