Between Victory and Defeat: What Has the War with Iran Achieved?

Discussions and criticisms within Israel following the announcement of a ceasefire with Iran present a complex and contradictory picture of the war's outcomes. While some journalists and analysts opposed to Netanyahu view the Israeli government as having failed to achieve the announced goals of the war, suggesting that Iran emerged resilient and perhaps stronger, analysts close to the right and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offer a different narrative, claiming that Israel achieved significant military accomplishments and that Iran emerged weakened and deterred. But what constitutes victory in war? And what does true defeat for a state mean? The Prussian philosopher and strategist Carl von Clausewitz explains that war is not an end in itself, but rather a continuation of politics by other means, a tool for achieving the state's will and political objectives. From this perspective, the success of a war is measured by the extent to which its strategic and political goals are achieved, not just by the number of strikes or military losses. Despite the sharp differences in evaluations of the war, most Israeli analysts seem to agree on one fundamental point: the ceasefire is fragile and temporary, and does not represent a true end to the conflict. In the view of critics, the latest round ended in the familiar pattern of Netanyahu's government: tactical military achievements are matched by political and strategic failures. Analyses published in the newspaper Haaretz indicate that Netanyahu, after the announcement of the ceasefire, did not present any vision for reconstruction or stability, but only spoke of the possibility of a new round of fighting, at a time when Israeli society was exhausted from forty days of war and the human and economic toll. Thus, as happened in previous rounds, military escalation ends with limited achievements that do not translate into real political gains, while the Israeli society bears the largest costs. The discussion also focuses on the question: what did the war actually achieve? Some analysts believe that the United States and Israel did not succeed in achieving the two central objectives: eliminating the Iranian nuclear program and the ballistic missile program and opening the Strait of Hormuz, which essentially makes the conflict return to square one, with Iran remaining strong and capable of recovery. Conversely, analysts close to the right argue that the war was not necessarily aimed at the total destruction of these capabilities, but rather at reshaping the balance of deterrence in the region, demonstrating Israel's ability to strike deep into Iran and enhancing its status as a dominant regional power. Another point of contention arises over whether the ceasefire has put an end to Netanyahu's vision of reshaping the Middle East through military force. His critics argue that the project is incomplete, that the true limits of the conflict have not been reached, and that Iran’s continued capabilities make the conflict prone to explosion at any time. His supporters argue that the ceasefire is not the end of the war, but a phase within a long struggle, and that Israel emerged strategically stronger, despite the criticisms of the agreement and accusations of political opportunism. Recent Israeli security assessments indicate that the northern front remains open, and that Israel has conducted intensive attacks on Lebanon targeting about 100 sites within 10 minutes, in what was described as a retaliatory measure to instill fear, while attempting to strike at Hezbollah's military and political command structure to bolster the image of deterrence after the war with Iran. These operations reflect the continuation of a policy of managing open conflicts more than a pursuit to end them politically, which makes the region susceptible to potential escalations despite the ceasefire. Therefore, even with the announcement of a ceasefire, many analysts believe that the region has not entered a phase of real stability, but rather a fragile truce. Tensions between Israel and Iran remain, and the core military capabilities of both sides have not disappeared. In the Middle East, as past experiences have proven, there is no middle ground: either an open war, or a constant and intensive readiness for war. The war with Iran has not been fully resolved, and the Israeli achievements on the ground have been significant on both tactical and strategic levels, as Israel was able to deliver impactful strikes that hindered some Iranian capabilities and demonstrated its ability to reach into the depths of Iran, reinforcing its position as an important regional power. However, the major goals of the war, such as eliminating the Iranian nuclear program or reshaping the Middle East through military force, have not been achieved. Iran emerged damaged and weary, and may need some time to recover, but it has not been completely defeated. Israel remains an active regional power, capable of imposing deterrence and controlling the course of the conflict, while the potential for managing open conflicts and transforming them into political and strategic tools that serve its interests in the region continues.