At the outset of Israel’s assault on Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared — brimming with confidence in the first hours of the conflict — that Israel was determined to accomplish sweeping strategic goals: eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme, dismantling its ballistic missile system, and redrawing the Middle East map by toppling the Iranian regime as one of the war’s anticipated consequences.
Yet the fighting came to an abrupt end after just 12 days, under heavy pressure from US President Donald Trump, who urged Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire. Iran, in turn, agreed to a Qatari-brokered mediation, following American strategic bombers’ use of bunker-buster bombs to strike Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. Tehran responded with a limited, largely symbolic missile attack on the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar — both housing US forces.
This sudden conclusion sparked wide debate over what Israel truly accomplished in its surprise war against Iran. Despite the use of B-2 bombers to target Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, it remains too early to determine the extent of the actual damage.
Of note was a leak by CNN reporting a classified US military intelligence assessment that the strikes might have had only a limited effect — and that Iran could rebuild within months. This leak angered President Trump, who lashed out at CNN and other American outlets that cast doubt on the official narrative.
The Israeli military spokesman also acknowledged that it was far too soon to conclude the state of Iran’s nuclear facilities, casting further doubt on one of Netanyahu’s central war objectives.
Iran’s Ballistic Missiles and Israel’s Defences Tested
Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, meanwhile, remained remarkably precise and destructive until the final hours of the war. Observers noted that Tehran likely did not deploy its full missile capability. As the conflict dragged on, Israel’s air defence system showed signs of strain — particularly in countering Iran’s hypersonic missiles. Moreover, Israel’s stockpile of Arrow interceptors dwindled, each costing an estimated $2–3 million per unit.
Perhaps Israel’s most significant failure was its inability to destabilise — let alone topple — the Iranian regime. The assassinations of senior Iranian commanders and the initial surprise strikes backfired, uniting the Iranian public behind their leadership despite the intensity of the Israeli bombardment and the deployment of advanced espionage drones and operatives inside Tehran and other cities.
Why Israel Couldn’t See It Through
From a strategic perspective, it was highly unusual for Israel to halt a war it started without securing its minimum objectives — especially the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, perceived as an existential threat by Tel Aviv.
Several factors appear to have forced Israel’s hand:
1. Iran’s Resilience and Retaliatory Capability
Iran quickly absorbed the initial strikes, regained the initiative, and responded within 24 hours with devastating waves of missile attacks on Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities. Precision missiles struck sensitive military, security, and industrial sites, demonstrating Iran’s capacity to adapt and prepare for a long war of attrition that Israel could not sustain.
2. Unexpected Israeli Losses and Domestic Impact
Within days, the scale of damage inside Israel was substantial and unexpected. Key military, industrial, and vital infrastructure were hit, bringing economic life, education, and air travel to a standstill. Israel effectively operated under a state of continuous emergency. According to Calcalist, initial damage was estimated at $5.3 billion, while Bloomberg, citing Israel’s Ministry of Finance, put early losses at around $3 billion. Continued losses could have eroded domestic support for the war, leaving Netanyahu’s government politically vulnerable.
3. Trump’s Strategic Calculus and Limited Military Options
President Trump’s decision to halt the conflict after striking Iran’s most critical nuclear sites was aimed at rescuing Netanyahu from a worsening quagmire. Israel lacks the military capability to destroy Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow facility, buried under 80–90 meters of mountain rock. Trump was also wary of an expanded conflict: Iran is vast — over 1.7 million square kilometres with a population of 90 million and formidable missile forces. Prolonged war risked spiralling into a global energy crisis if the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for 25% of global energy trade — were closed. Trump, preoccupied with confronting China and promoting his “America First” economic agenda, had no interest in being dragged into a costly regional quagmire.
Iran’s Calculations and Compromises
Iran did not seek war but had long prepared for it amid escalating Israeli threats, especially following Tel Aviv’s airstrike on Iranian soil in October 2024. Throughout this latest conflict, Tehran consistently linked any resumption of negotiations with Washington to an end to Israeli aggression.
Tehran’s strong missile retaliation, and its readiness to escalate further — including the potential closure of Hormuz and the involvement of regional allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces, and Yemen’s Ansarullah — reinforced its position. Yet Iran, too, faced intense pressures to contain the fallout.
1. Element of Surprise and Intelligence Breaches
Iran was blindsided by Trump’s manoeuvre, which tied potential war to the sixth round of US–Iran negotiations in Oman, scheduled for June 15 — while the Israeli assault began on June 13. The surprise attacks inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military, nuclear infrastructure, and air defence systems and led to the assassination of key commanders and nuclear scientists.
2. Internal Security Threats
Iran also faced extensive infiltration by well-equipped Israeli-backed operatives embedded in multiple cities, who aided attacks through intelligence gathering and direct sabotage. This forced Tehran to prioritise counter-intelligence and the dismantling of these sleeper cells — echoing Hezbollah’s past struggles with Israeli infiltration that undermined its combat capabilities during operations supporting Gaza.
3. Air Defence Gaps and Limited External Support
Israel’s focused strikes on Iran’s air defence systems — including the October 2024 attacks on Russian-made S-300 batteries and early warning radars — weakened Iran’s skies further. Sources indicated that Moscow did not replace the destroyed systems, exposing Iranian cities and strategic sites to further Israeli air attacks. A visit by Iran’s Foreign Minister to Moscow in June to request urgent resupply reportedly yielded little due to Russia’s balancing act between good ties with Israel and its own US considerations.
Prolonged war without robust air defences would have left Iran increasingly exposed — especially once Washington entered the fray, bringing its overwhelming aerial and missile capabilities to bear, potentially tipping the conflict decisively in Israel’s favour.
An Unresolved Battlefield — For Now
The battle may have ended, but each player — Iran, Israel, and the US — comes away with lessons and vulnerabilities laid bare. Israel’s failure to deliver a quick knockout, America’s reluctance for a drawn-out entanglement, and Iran’s exposure to devastating air power all suggest that the pause is tactical, not final.
The war proved Iran’s resilience and missile precision while demonstrating that it retains powerful options it did not fully deploy. As tensions simmer, these realities will shape future confrontations — especially if upcoming negotiations collapse or Iran’s nuclear programme proves more robust than anticipated.
While the full scale of each side’s losses remains obscured by secrecy, one fact stands clear: Iran endured the onslaught and emerged with its national resolve intact. Its strategic posture in the region remains a formidable challenge to Israel’s ambition for unchallenged dominance — a contest likely to flare again in a region where old rivalries rarely rest for long.
