The war between Israel and Iran is far from over—perhaps it hasn’t even reached its peak. What is certain, however, is that the goals declared by both sides—directly and through their allies—are lofty, dangerous, and historically consequential. These ambitions may well redraw the geopolitical map of the region for decades to come.
Israel’s Vision: Beyond Nuclear Disarmament
From an Israeli perspective, the opening strike of this war—with its stunning precision and apparent decades-long military and intelligence preparation—was never just about crippling Iran’s nuclear program. Tel Aviv’s objective goes beyond the “Libya model” of dismantlement. It seeks to strip the Islamic Republic of its ballistic and hypersonic deterrence, paving the way to shift from a strategy of “policy change” to regime change.
Israel no longer hides its war objectives. No need for leaked intelligence or speculative analysis—they’re stated openly and proudly. Ignoring this clarity would be a strategic mistake.
This war mirrors Israel’s historic playbook used against Arab and Palestinian foes: strategic deception, pre-emptive shock (as in June 1967), decapitation of leadership (as in Lebanon), and deep security infiltration.
Even more telling is Israel’s early preparation for the “day after” in Iran—already initiating contact with exiled monarchists, armed opposition groups, and separatists, which strongly suggests Mossad’s field success was not homegrown, but deeply tied to these groups and their internal reach.
But Will It Go As Israel Plans?
That remains uncertain. Victory for Israel hinges on two conditions:
- Iran’s ability to survive the initial assault and re-establish deterrence
- U.S. willingness to go all-in, attacking targets Israel cannot reach, especially fortified nuclear infrastructure
As of now, neither condition appears fulfilled. Iran has not raised the white flag. On the contrary, it has demonstrated resilience and initiated a recalibration of deterrence. The U.S., meanwhile, remains hesitant to match Israel’s extreme ambitions, preferring limited engagement unless the cost-benefit equation shifts decisively.
The American Equation: From Diplomacy to Force?
Washington once accepted a uranium enrichment limit of 3.6% under the 2015 Vienna Accord, enough for peaceful use. But that agreement collapsed under Trump’s first administration, which later demanded zero enrichment on Iranian soil.
While the U.S. shares Israeli concerns over Iran’s missile capabilities and regional influence, it prefers to avoid full-scale war. President Trump—who once styled himself as a global peacemaker driven by a “Nobel dream”—has instead presided over diplomatic collapses across Gaza, Ukraine, and now Iran. His administration often replaces failure with claims of preventing war in other places—Pakistan, India, Ethiopia.
Though Trump sometimes deviated from Israel’s script (e.g. engaging with Syria, Hamas, and Ansar Allah in Yemen), his current stance is fully aligned with Tel Aviv—especially on Iran and Gaza.
Will the U.S. Join Israel’s War with Strategic Bombers?
This is no longer a hypothetical. Analysts argue that U.S. involvement could emerge under two scenarios:
- If Iran or its allies cross “red lines” by targeting U.S. military assets or interests in the region. In such a case, U.S. intervention would become inevitable, backed by Europe’s “Troika” (UK, France, Germany).
- If Israel faces a defeat serious enough to reverse its recent regional gains, particularly those since October 7, 2023. Should Tel Aviv appear on the verge of strategic failure, Washington would step in militarily to preserve Israeli superiority, in line with decades of American policy.
Tehran and its allies must factor this into both political calculations and battlefield decisions. Behind Iran’s defiant rhetoric, there exists a “cold Iranian brain” carefully weighing each move.
From Tehran’s Perspective: What Would Victory Look Like?
Iran’s top priorities are clear:
- Restoring command-and-control networks devastated by Israeli decapitation strikes
- Reasserting deterrence, particularly after Israel’s attempt to turn Tehran into another Southern Lebanon, and Isfahan into Khan Younis 2.0
The red banners of vengeance still fly atop Iran’s mosques and husseiniyyahs. There is no space for negotiating a ceasefire, nor any urgency to return to talks with Trump’s administration.
Most critically, Tehran refuses to compromise on two non-negotiables:
- 3.6% uranium enrichment on Iranian soil
- Recognition of Iran’s legitimate nuclear rights for peaceful energy
Iran will not discuss its missile program or regional role, as doing so would mean that Israel had succeeded in imposing its will, and that Trump had won through coercion what diplomacy could not achieve.
Victory, Defined
- Trump wins if Iran dismantles its nuclear infrastructure but is left with a symbolic shell dependent on external supply chains
- Netanyahu wins if he strips Tehran of its nuclear and missile deterrence, and especially if he initiates internal regime change
- Iran wins if it restores balance and deterrence, maintains its nuclear rights, and avoids collapse despite the harshest conditions
The war is still unfolding. But already, the metrics of victory and defeat are taking shape. Tehran’s endurance, Israel’s ambitions, and America’s threshold for war will determine who ultimately writes the history of this conflict.
This work demands time, pressure, and sacrifice.
But we do it—for the Ummah, and for the truth.
If you believe in this mission, stand with us.
Click here to Donate & Support Us
