A War Without Resolution: How Israel Attempts to Frame the Outcomes as a Narrative of Victory?

After the ceasefire came into effect, the American-Israeli war against Iran did not actually end, but rather shifted to another arena of equal importance: the arena of narrative. While the political understandings are still unclear, a different kind of battle has begun in Israel, a battle of interpreting what occurred and determining whether the war ended in victory or failure.

In this context, Amos Harel's analysis in Haaretz stands out as a model of internal critical discourse, which can be summarized simply: the war was not conducted as it was presented to the public, did not achieve the announced objectives, and there is a clear gap between the official narrative and the reality on the ground.

This perspective is based on three central observations: that the United States effectively led the war while the Israeli role was exaggerated, that the "achievements" were presented in a selective manner that does not always reflect their real impact; and that the major goals, foremost among them decisively handling the Iranian threat or toppling the regime, were not achieved. Although this criticism may seem close to the discourse of the opposition, it is essentially a critique from within the Israeli system itself, directed primarily at the interior, at a public that has begun to ask difficult questions after weeks of mobilization and grand promises.

What is gradually being revealed does not align with the image of "victory" that was marketed. The war, which was presented as an equal partnership, revealed a decisive American superiority in conducting operations, contrasting with a less central Israeli role. Even in the presentation of "achievements," a gap emerged between the numbers and reality, as the results were inflated through accounting methods that do not always reflect actual impact.

Nevertheless, what happened cannot be reduced to a complete failure. Israel, with American support, achieved significant military accomplishments: wide-ranging strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, a reduction in some air defense capabilities, and a clear ability to operate deep within Iran, akin to enforcing actual air superiority. These are not marginal results, but indicators of a qualitative development in Israeli military capability.

However, these achievements remained without decisive strategic translation. The Iranian nuclear program was not resolved, ballistic missiles continued until the last moment, and most importantly, the regime in Tehran did not fall. Herein lies the gap: between a militarily strong war that is incapable of producing a definitive political outcome.

Conversely, Iran exited the war in a complex manner. It did not win in the traditional sense, but it endured. It maintained the cohesion of its regime, continued to respond until the ceasefire, and succeeded in using influential pressure points. This endurance, in itself, is sufficient to thwart the decisive goal that Israel aimed for.

If the war with Iran ended without resolution, the Lebanese front revealed the limits of Israeli power more clearly. The escalation in Lebanon, even after the ceasefire in the Iranian theater, was not merely a military extension but an expression of a strategic impasse.

Israel, which bet on weakening or deterring Hezbollah, found itself facing a different reality: an existing combat capability, field exhaustion, and continued threats to the Israeli depth. In fact, some developments revealed increasing fatigue in the army after a long war on multiple fronts.

If Israel is unable to decisively handle a nearby and direct front, what is the meaning of the "achievements" far away in Iran? In this sense, the Lebanese front was not just an additional battlefield but a practical test of the limits of military power— a test whose results remain unresolved to this day.

Domestically, a clear struggle is emerging between two narratives: the narrative of Benjamin Netanyahu's supporters sees what was achieved as a significant but incomplete success, unprecedented military achievements, air superiority, and a weakening of Iran, even if not all goals were achieved. In contrast, the critical narrative, as reflected by Harel, posits that this war reveals a deep gap between ambition and reality. Important tactical achievements, but they did not change the strategic equation and did not achieve the goals that were announced to the public.

What is striking, however, is that these two narratives, despite their opposition, operate within the same framework: both attempt to reinterpret the war rather than move beyond it. This makes the real struggle today not just about what happened, but about its meaning.

In summary, what happened cannot be described as a clear victory, nor a complete defeat: Israel did not achieve its major goals but did achieve significant military accomplishments, especially in the air. Iran did not win, but it withstood and prevented a resolution against it. Lebanon has revealed the limits of Israeli power and has brought the threat back to the forefront. Thus, the war becomes an open equation: inconclusive results, conflicting narratives, and a reality that has not changed radically. In the end, the question may not be who won the war, but: can the absence of victory be transformed into a narrative of triumph?