Skip to main content

Featured

Israel's Continued Bombing of Southern Lebanon: A Strategic Dilemma for Hezbollah

Israel's persistent airstrikes on southern Lebanon, including today's intense bombing of areas like Ali al-Taher, the Kfartabneet Heights, Nabatieh al-Fouqa, and Jabal Shaqif, despite months of ceasefire, reveal one of the most perplexing moments in Hezbollah's trajectory since its founding. The silence enveloping the party is not just a tactical choice, but a strategic enigma that warrants analysis on two levels: Is the party betting that the "quiet" will be met with Israeli restraint? Or is this the true result of a dismantling of deterrent capabilities, turning the party into little more than a punching bag in an open arena? First: The "Misjudgment" Ambush The first scenario assumes that Hezbollah consciously chose calm, thinking that absorbing blows would curb Israel's appetite. The belief was that the more they withdrew, the more Israel would quiet down. However, this wager on the "rationality" of the adversary appears to be losing....
Post a Comment
Read more

The Iran-Israel War Ends Without a Winner — But Not Without a Message

 














Part of my ongoing series analyzing the shifting dynamics of the Israel-Iran war.
This installment focuses on the ceasefire announced on June 24, 2025, and what it reveals about the strategic, political, and psychological outcomes for both sides. The war didn’t end in victory—but it didn’t end in silence either.
Full Arabic version below.

It finally ended on the familiar Middle Eastern formula: no victor, no vanquished.

President Donald Trump announced the success of his “mediation” between Israel and Iran—though in truth, he wasn’t a mediator but an active party. His statement, polished and oddly warm, wished “blessings” for both sides.

But while Israel claimed the first shot, it was Iran that fired the last.

Just hours before the ceasefire took effect, Tehran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles targeting critical Israeli sites, including Be’er Sheva and near Tel Nof Airbase. The attack was brutal—possibly the most painful blow to Israel’s south during the war. More importantly, it wasn't Trump’s statement that closed the chapter, but Iran’s final salvo.

Iran framed that last strike as a symbolic victory for domestic consumption. Israel accepted the blow as a political off-ramp for Netanyahu, whose maximalist war aims had become increasingly unrealistic.

Israel: From ‘Zero Enrichment’ to Zero Strategic Gain

At the outset, Israel set non-negotiable goals:

  • The complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program under the banner of zero enrichment—not even for peaceful purposes.
  • The elimination of Iran’s strategic missile capabilities.
  • Regime change in Tehran.

Trump’s administration, which had previously settled for limiting enrichment levels, adopted Israel’s maximalist demand for the first time—a political win for Netanyahu, at least on paper. “America First” became “Whatever Israel Wants.”

But reality struck back. The cost of erasing Iran’s nuclear capabilities was too high. The U.S. pulled back before going all the way.

Vice President JD Vance admitted that 400kg of highly enriched uranium had gone missing—not destroyed, not secured, just… vanished.
Intelligence reports confirmed damage to Natanz and Fordow, but the deeper infrastructure remained intact. The IAEA made it clear: it cannot yet assess the full extent of the damage or Iran’s ability to resume enrichment within weeks.

Translation: the program wasn’t dismantled—it was disrupted. Not eliminated, but pushed into the shadows.

Iran: A Limited Strike That Preserved Deterrence

Iran didn’t win. But it surprised many by not losing.

Despite precise strikes on its nuclear facilities, losses among IRGC leadership, breached air defenses, and Israeli drones operating inside its territory, Tehran retained the ability to retaliate up to the last moment. Its final strike wasn’t just military—it was a bloody political signature on the ceasefire.

Its limited hit on the U.S. Al Udeid base in Qatar was symbolic, not escalatory—just enough to save face without rewriting the rules of engagement.

Israeli Society: Supporting War, Fearing Its Costs

Polls show that over 80% of Jewish Israelis supported the war against Iran. But that doesn’t mean they were prepared to endure its consequences.

In the early days of Iranian missile strikes, over 50,000 Israelis reportedly left the country—some fleeing to Cyprus, others crossing into Egypt via Taba. Most weren’t anti-war. They just didn’t want to pay the price.

This is Israel’s paradox: a society mentally on board with war, but emotionally and psychologically unwilling to bear it. It wants victory—just without sacrifice.

What Was Achieved?

  • Iran’s regime still stands.
  • Its nuclear program is damaged but not dismantled.
  • Its missile capabilities were hit but not neutralized.
  • Iran didn’t liberate Jerusalem, deter Israel, or “save Gaza.”

Both sides emerged claiming something. But neither got what it truly wanted.
Each accepted terms it would have rejected weeks ago. That alone speaks volumes.

The Fire Beneath the Ashes

There were no parades. No flags waving in triumph. No roaring flyovers. Just a statement from Washington, a missile strike in Be’er Sheva, and silence over Natanz and Fordow.

This isn’t peace. It’s a pause—a fragile calm in a long war. Fire under ash, not extinguished.
And those who didn’t break today... might just explode tomorrow.

Comments

Post a Comment