How Should the Results of the Iran–Israel War Be Evaluated?

As expected, the recent war between Iran and the Israeli occupation has been judged across the Arab world through the lens of entrenched regional polarisation, especially regarding positions on Iran. This has led to rushed and exaggerated conclusions favouring one side or the other — sweeping labels like “total victory,” “crushing defeat,” “regime collapse,” or “unconditional surrender.” Disappointingly, even some researchers and commentators — who should be objective — have echoed these premature claims.

Yet it should be obvious that evaluating the outcome of a war of this magnitude cannot be reduced to hollow slogans. A proper assessment must be built on a rigorous method that weighs multiple elements: the war’s context, each side’s objectives (attacker and attacked), battlefield developments, losses suffered, relative capabilities and arsenals, and ultimately, how and on what basis the war concluded.

---

Understanding the Context

Several critical facts must be considered to grasp the broader picture:

First, Iran did not seek this confrontation; it was forced into it and tried until the last moment to avoid it — perhaps mistakenly believing it could do so. This miscalculation overlooked the fundamental shifts in Israel’s military-security doctrine over the past two years and the broader dynamics in the region. More importantly, Iran was determined to avoid a direct and comprehensive conflict with the United States, which it views as devastating and potentially catastrophic.

Second, the war came after Iran’s allies in the region were significantly weakened, at least from Israel’s perspective. Chief among these developments were the fall of the Syrian regime, sustained blows to Hezbollah in Lebanon culminating in a ceasefire agreement, and the weakening of Hamas and the Gaza resistance. This cost Iran its forward defence line and the potential for ground intervention in any war with Israel, substantially eroding its deterrent posture and leverage.

Third, Iran did not face Israel alone. Several Arab and Western actors participated — whether through intelligence sharing, active interception of Iranian drones and missiles (by granting airspace access and/or direct engagement), or the major American airstrike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities in the final days of the war.

---

Key Battlefield Developments

Israel undeniably struck a major blow by assassinating high-ranking Iranian military commanders and prominent nuclear scientists simultaneously while bombing sensitive sites. Over the years, Israel demonstrated its remarkable intelligence reach inside Iran, with Mossad activating networks capable of operating drones and diverse weapons during the war. The American direct strike on Iran’s nuclear sites at the war’s end was another substantial blow.

However, in the days that followed, Iran absorbed the initial shock and moved quickly to activate its ballistic missile arsenal, signalling a shift toward a war of attrition — a form of conflict that, by many measures, Tehran appears more able to endure than Israel. Despite not assassinating any major Israeli figures and the lopsided casualty balance in Israel’s favour, Iran demonstrated that its missiles could inflict far greater damage — and with more precision — than Israeli leaders had expected. Several Israeli and Western media outlets corroborated this, alongside repeated comments by Trump and Netanyahu describing the “difficult war” and the “heavy price” of confronting Iran.

---

No Clear Ceasefire, No Clear Victory

Another crucial point is that the war did not end with a formal ceasefire agreement, despite how it is commonly described. Instead, it halted through an unspoken understanding among the three main players not to continue fighting. There was no mutually agreed-upon framework for peace or security, nor any breakthrough in talks between Tehran and Washington on the nuclear file. Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first to call for ending the war after the U.S. strikes on nuclear sites — a fact that undercuts any narrative of Israel achieving an outright victory. Had Israel been entirely satisfied with the results, it would not have rushed to halt operations in this manner.

Netanyahu’s stated war goals were ambitious: regime change in Iran, destruction of its nuclear programme, and dismantling its ballistic missile arsenal. Trump also repeatedly demanded Iran’s “complete and unconditional surrender” as a condition to end hostilities. In contrast, Tehran stuck to its narrative of defending itself, punishing Israel, and returning to talks with the U.S. from a position of resistance.

---

What Each Side Gained and Lost

In the end, Iran arguably achieved its immediate goals: halting the aggression, striking back at Israel, and avoiding a direct, full-scale war with the U.S. This does not downplay the impact of the blows it suffered — from assassinations and breaches to damage to its nuclear and air defence infrastructure. But Israel did not accomplish its sweeping objectives; instead, it managed successful security operations, leveraged the long-sought U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and showcased its deep espionage capabilities. Yet it also demonstrated its enduring inability to neutralise Iran’s missile threat, despite extensive air defences and allied support.

The immediate consequences are clear: the Iranian regime remains intact, while Israel’s domestic front suffered unprecedented internal strain. Although it’s difficult to verify the full extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear programme, it is almost certain that the strikes will delay it for a significant period.

---

A Conflict Likely to Reignite

In the final stage, the war ended with carefully calculated strikes by the U.S. and Iran — each notifying the other through Turkey beforehand, as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan confirmed in a recent TV interview. This indicates that neither side wanted a full-scale war. Both Tehran and Tel Aviv chose to stop at this point, meaning neither can claim an outright victory or was dealt a decisive defeat. Instead, each walked away with gains and losses — and analysts will debate how much each side scored.

Looking ahead, both Iran and Israel will study this conflict in detail — Iran to address security breaches, domestic vulnerabilities, and the state of its regional alliances; Israel to confront its enduring missile dilemma. Given that none of the core issues was resolved, and considering the ongoing wars in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, the region remains on edge. If the damage to Iran’s nuclear programme proves less than what satisfies Israel and Washington, the likelihood of renewed conflict grows even stronger.