Though both Iran and Israel declared victory in the latest 12-day conflict, it is clear neither truly achieved a decisive win.
While Israel certainly demonstrated intelligence superiority, it ultimately failed to accomplish the objectives it announced to justify the war.
The most significant outcome of this conflict is that Netanyahu’s grand vision for a “New Middle East” never materialized. His posturing about destroying Iran, collapsing its political system, and completely eliminating its nuclear program remain far-fetched aspirations, detached from reality.
While Israel did weaken the capabilities of Iran’s proxies, particularly Hezbollah, and the US successfully contained Iran-aligned groups in Iraq, neutralizing their threat to the US and Israel, this success in curbing Iran’s proxies was not replicated to the same degree with Iran itself.
One potential outcome of this conflict is that it might prompt Iran to reconsider the efficacy of its armed proxies.
Iran faced the Israeli aggression alone, without any support from these groups. It became conspicuously apparent that Iran insists on supporting armed factions, labeled “resistance” and “steadfastness,” in sovereign, non-occupied countries like Lebanon, Yemen, or Iraq. There is no legitimate basis for an armed faction to possess military equipment and weapons outside of state control, simply under the pretext of being a resistance group.
Iran’s resilience in this conflict undoubtedly stems from its engagement in a direct, “principal” war rather than a proxy one. This meant the nation deployed its full reserves of strength, patience, maneuvering capability, and deterrence.
Thus, this display of resolve quickly made it clear to Israel that its fantasies of “destroying” Iran or collapsing its regime would not materialize.
Furthermore, despite significant intelligence breakthroughs by Israel within the Iranian system’s civilian and military elite—leading to the deaths of 17 nuclear scientists and over 20 military commanders—the combined ability of Israel and the US to establish an alternative to the current regime has proven nearly non-existent.
There’s a critical distinction between viewing the Iranian regime as one facing challenges and considering it a fragile system on the brink of collapse: it certainly does belong to the former category.
This is a regime that restricts opposition activities and engineers the political landscape to fit the Supreme Leader’s vision. The genuine competition between conservatives and reformists effectively ended after the 2009 elections.
Since then, the political rivalry has been confined to a struggle between conservatives favored by the Supreme Leader and reformists approved by him—essentially, an internal competition among the regime’s own factions.
While this has injected a degree of vitality and internal renewal into the governing system, it has consistently remained bound by the strict rules imposed by the dominant religious ruling establishment in the country.
Iran is likely to change through its internal dynamics rather than through the supposed “Hebrew victory” that never materialized, or through US strikes and schemes.
Iranian society is renowned for being a vibrant and capable society that can bring about change or precise reform as it deems fit.
About the author:
Amr al-Shobaki is an Egyptian writer, political analyst and managing-editor of Ahwal Masria magazine. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Cairo University (1983), a Master’s degree in Political Science from the Institute of Political Studies in France (1993), and a PhD in Political Science from the Sorbonne University in France (2002).
Israel failed to win Egypt Independent.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Israel failed to win )
Also on site :