As the American Israeli war on Iran enters its twelfth day, debate is intensifying in Washington and Tel Aviv over the outcome of the military operations and their political horizon. This comes amid conflicting signals between claims that Iran’s capabilities have been weakened and the continued launch of missiles and drones toward Israel.
This contradiction reflects what observers describe as the “strategic ambiguity” shaping the management of the war, both in terms of its declared objectives and the timeline for its conclusion. The situation has drawn criticism inside the United States and raised questions about the ability of the war to achieve its political goals.
Richard Weitz, a security and strategy expert at the Wikistrat Foundation, believes that the debate in Washington reflects divisions over how the war is being managed. Some critics argue that the U.S. administration has not clearly defined its ultimate objectives, particularly as official rhetoric has shifted alongside developments on the battlefield.
Supporters of the administration, however, view this ambiguity as intentional, arguing that it provides the White House with broad flexibility in managing the conflict without prematurely revealing its plans. This approach allows the American president to determine the appropriate timing for ending the war according to his own calculations.
On the ground, developments present a more complex picture than official statements suggest. The newspaper Israel Hayom reported an increase in the pace of Iranian missile launches toward Israel over the past 24 hours.
Researcher in Israeli affairs Imad Abu Awad believes that this development places the Israeli narrative under increasing pressure, particularly after Tel Aviv announced that it had succeeded in targeting Iranian missile launch platforms and significantly reducing their capabilities.
A Marketing Narrative
Abu Awad says that Israeli discourse often takes on a promotional tone aimed at reassuring the domestic public by projecting an image of a rapid victory based on destroying the enemy’s capabilities and paralysing its operations. However, the continued launch of missiles suggests that Iran still controls the rhythm of the battle.
According to his assessment, the renewed missile escalation reflects Tehran’s readiness for a prolonged war, meaning that the Israeli home front will remain under constant pressure. This situation places the Israeli government in an embarrassing position and subjects its high war objectives to a difficult test.
This reality also revives debate over Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile arsenal. Israeli statements have appeared contradictory, first claiming the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program before later warning that Tehran is approaching the ability to possess a nuclear bomb.
Abu Awad believes that the continuation of Iranian strikes contributes to undermining confidence in the government’s narrative inside Israel, particularly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu previously spoke of destroying most of Iran’s military capabilities.
In Washington, Weitz argues that the military campaign has achieved important gains by weakening part of Iran’s conventional military capabilities. However, he emphasises that the real challenge lies in transforming these military gains into a clear political achievement.
He adds that the complexity of the political landscape in Iran, combined with the presence of a new leadership that does not appear enthusiastic about dialogue with the United States, may make achieving that goal even more difficult.
When Will the War End?
Regarding the future trajectory of the war, Weitz notes that U.S. President Donald Trump prefers to end it within a relatively short period, while both Israel and Iran may see advantages in prolonging it in order to secure additional gains.
Israel seeks to use the war to weaken Iran’s military and economic infrastructure, while Tehran believes that enduring for a longer period may strengthen its political position and demonstrate its ability to withstand military pressure.
This equation raises concern within Israel. Abu Awad believes that Tel Aviv fears the possibility that the war could end through an American Iranian agreement that does not take Israeli security calculations into account, particularly after the failure of scenarios such as toppling the Iranian government or igniting widespread internal unrest.
For this reason, according to his assessment, the Israeli government is attempting to prolong the war as much as possible in order to achieve the greatest possible number of military objectives inside Iran, while also pressuring Washington to avoid any agreement that could restrict Israel’s freedom of action in the future.
Nevertheless, he believes that the final decision ultimately rests with the United States, since the war is fundamentally based on American military and political support. This makes its future largely dependent on Washington’s calculations.
Inside Israel, debate is also intensifying over the economic cost of the war. The government has approved an additional security budget of 30 billion shekels, approximately 10 billion dollars, at a time when the economy is incurring losses estimated at around 3 billion dollars per week due to the disruption of large sectors of economic activity.
With the Ministry of Finance moving toward cuts in the budgets of various government ministries and the likelihood of rising inflation increasing, questions are growing within Israel about the economy’s ability to withstand a prolonged war, especially given the continued need to finance military operations and purchase weapons.
