“Meanwhile, what is the plan for fighting a real army on some other battlefield?”
Several issues here. The Army had developed plans for the probable wars. (They’re almost always wrong as they’re based on the last war.) But I don’t believe there are any major tank wars projected. That may be one issue. Another is that Israel went into Lebanon with tanks and got their ass handed to them by shoulder fired missiles. (They did it stupidly, but that’s beside the point.) The tanks cost 45 million a copy and missiles cost $10,000 each. It’s a bad trade. Also, air and fire/forget weaponry has tremendously advanced. (That’s it in a nutshell.)
When Army, any Army, have to support their ground troops, there is no other choice but to involve tanks. Air Force can give limited support against concentrated targets but it’s impossible to do that against single targets with RPG’s on their shoulder. Regarding your statement about Israeli tanks in Lebanon, loses was minimal but most important that military can learn and improve defense of the tanks in the future.