How Israel could be the only winner in the Iran war

As the fighting involving Iran, Israel and the United States enters its third week, the war presents a paradox: almost every major actor involved in the conflict appears to be losing something significant, yet none is able — or willing — to disengage. The war has already inflicted devastating damage on Iran, intensified regional instability, and raised global economic risks.

First, Iran. Large sections of its infrastructure lie in ruins, thousands of people have reportedly been killed, and the country faces the possibility of a long-term economic and political downslide. Some analysts warn that prolonged warfare could push Iran towards the kind of state collapse witnessed in Iraq, Syria and Libya after years of conflict.

More from Opinion

Despite these losses, the expectation of Tehran’s quick collapse seems unrealistic. Iran is a civilisation-state with thousands of years of history, a deeply rooted sense of national pride, and a political culture that glorifies sacrifice and martyrdom. One needs to look back at the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, when lakhs of Iranians were killed, coupled with massive material losses, yet Tehran not only survived but emerged far more ideologically hardened.

As one veteran diplomat told this author just before the beginning of the war, it might be easier for the Americans and Israelis to initiate the war, but it will not be easy to end it, given the complexity of Iranian history combined with the excessive glorification of martyrdom.

The architects of the war, particularly in Washington, appear to have convinced themselves that the Iranian regime stood on the verge of implosion. The narrative was something that Donald Trump wanted to hear: that the Islamic Republic was unpopular, its economy weak, and its people restless. Eliminate the top politico-military leadership, strike a few key installations, and the system would crumble like a house of cards.

However, the assumption that removing Iran’s top leadership would lead to regime change now appears overly optimistic. Even if the Iranian government faces domestic discontent, external military pressure often strengthens nationalist sentiment, frequently with an Islamist hue. In such circumstances, populations that may criticise their own governments often unite against foreign intervention.

The US, thus, finds itself in a strategic dilemma. Military superiority allows it to rule the Iranian skies, but this does not guarantee political victory on the ground. The experience of Afghanistan and Iraq serves as a reminder of this chilling reality — that it is easier to start a war and far more difficult to end it successfully.

Iran is, without doubt, a formidable adversary. It refuses to surrender despite losing almost the entire politico-military top brass at the very beginning of the war. Just when one was tempted to see a meek Iranian surrender, what emerged instead was renewed warfare — more aggressive and based on projecting Iranian strength while challenging the enemy’s weaknesses.

Instead of trying to fight the enemy on its ground, Iran opens a new front to target its West Asian neighbours hosting American military bases. Tehran has also disrupted global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, making the war costly for the world. As one geostrategic expert was recently heard saying, the day oil prices breach $200 per barrel, it will be a victory for Tehran.

Coming to Israel, it approaches the war from an entirely different perspective. For Israelis, Iran is not simply another adversary; it is an existential threat. The possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is regarded in Tel Aviv as unacceptable. From that standpoint, the war is not optional; it is preventive.

Israel’s strategy, thus, appears less about regime change and more focused on capability destruction. Israeli leaders know that removing one Iranian government may simply bring another, more hostile one to power. Their objective is to cripple Iran’s economic, military and strategic capacity so severely that it cannot threaten Israel in the foreseeable future.

In that sense, Israel’s strategic logic is rooted in deterrence through destruction. By degrading Iran’s infrastructure, military command systems and nuclear facilities, Tel Aviv hopes to push Tehran’s capacity for regional aggression back by decades, if not longer. In this way, Israel seems to be the only player that entered the war with a clear objective — and may still come out laughing in the end. When the stakes are existential, no cost is exorbitant. No option is ignored. And no price is too high.

To understand the Israeli game plan, one can look at the fate of Iraq, Libya and Syria in the past. From the global perspective, all three operations, led largely by the US along with its Western allies, were disastrous, bringing uncertainty and instability to the region. Largely stable, less Islamist regimes were replaced by more chaotic Islamist versions. But for Tel Aviv, the removal of these regimes made it safer and more secure.

Israel’s Iran operation should be seen in this light. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to his credit, has pushed Israeli interests smartly. He should be credited with doing what Israel had failed to do for years under successive American administrations. He knew how to handle Donald Trump — massaging his ego when needed and selling him the lemon of a Venezuela-like short, swift regime-change operation that could boost the sagging image of the Epstein File-hit President.

While Israel may achieve some of these strategic goals, the broader geopolitical consequences of the war remain deeply uncertain, especially for the rest of the world. The conflict has already destabilised wider West Asia, disrupted global trade routes, and sent shockwaves through energy markets. It has also heightened the risk of further escalation involving regional actors and global powers.

With the exception of Israel, the Iran war offers no tangible gains for any country. Iran faces devastating destruction and economic collapse. The United States risks being drawn into another prolonged West Asian quagmire. The war also hampers America’s image as a security provider for its allies in the region. The widespread Iranian drone and missile attacks on pro-American Arab countries have called into question the US’ ability to provide security in the region. In fact, for these countries, the American presence has become the reason for Iranian attacks.

With the ripples of the Iran war being felt across the world, including in Bharat, which is heavily dependent on the region for its energy demands, one hopes better sense prevails and greater pressure is applied on all stakeholders to sit across the table and reach some form of negotiated settlement. The longer the war continues, the greater the level of pain felt across the world. Fifteen days are enough to realise that there will be no easy victory for the US and Israel — and no easy defeat for Iran.

(Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)