The underlying drivers of confrontation remain intact for each of the key participants. For Israel, especially under Netanyahu, the strategic logic of confrontation with Iran has become inseparable from domestic political survival. For years, Netanyahu has framed the Iranian threat as the defining issue of his political career. From his perspective, stopping now risks leaving Iran more resilient than before. Despite the damage inflicted during the war—including the loss of senior commanders and military infrastructure—the Iranian state remains intact, and so does its core capacity for deterrence.
The war has demonstrated that Iran’s military advantage lies not in conventional strength but in a broader architecture of asymmetric leverage: hardened missile infrastructure, distributed command networks, maritime disruption capabilities, and a web of regional proxy relationships. Iran absorbed severe losses, but it has not been strategically neutralized. Should sanctions be eased following renewed talks with Washington, or should Tehran find ways to use its leverage over regional shipping routes and energy flows to ease economic pressure, Iran could emerge over time in a stronger position than its adversaries had anticipated. For many within Israeli foreign policy circles, that prospect would be unsettling. For Netanyahu, it would be intolerable.
Read the full article here
