Seeing in stead of understanding

About yesterday's position Takchess commented the following:

So perhaps we should ask ourselves: what is the Big Idea in each position ? Look at structure first with no or minimal calculations. The attack of f7 is the Straw that stirs the drink.

There are two elements in this comment.

• At first that there is a big idea or big idea's in such complex tactical position with a definite outcome. Constructing narratives has proven to be a quite good method to discover these big idea's.
• At second the comment suggests that it is possible to look at the structure and to see the big idea. Thus ruling out the necessity for calculation for a great deal. I am convinced that that must be possible.
  

Although I understand the solution, thanks to the narratives I have constructed, I don't see it. There is no emotional experience that is triggered by the winning lines. Or it must be the amazement that there are only 3 killer moves for white, almost no matter what black does (Bxf7, Qb3, Ne5, all based on the weakness of f7). But that is an amazement based on disbelief. How can that be? I can find by reasoning that f7 is weak, but I don't see it. Today I have just looked at the position for quite some time, but I don't see the final characteristic why f7 is so bad. I have the feeling that I could encounter such position within a few weeks, with only a few changes, and that it very well might be possible that I don't recognize the big idea at all.

Yet I have the feeling that it must be possible to see the big idea. This position stems from a game Keres - Mecking. I'm convinced Keres saw it.
But I have no clue whatsoever how to realize this myself. This piece of the puzzle is still missing.
























White to play and win.