Strategic success in the Iran war: What Israel and the US achieved together - opinion

Lead

The recent war between Iran and Israel and their allies has produced sharply contrasting assessments of what was achieved. In Israeli media, the campaign is widely described as a strategic success that significantly degraded Iran's military capabilities and improved Israel's geostrategic position. In contrast, Al Jazeera portrays the conflict as a strategic deadlock that imposed heavy costs on the United States and redefined the conflict on a broader scale.

Coverage Comparison

Jerusalem Post published multiple opinion pieces from analysts and former officials arguing that the war against Iran achieved its core objectives. Hanan Shai, writing in the Jerusalem Post, states that the clear objective from the outset was to remove three threats: Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, and its network of proxy armies. He notes that regime change was never formally defined as a goal. David M. Weinberg, also in the Jerusalem Post, calls the war "the most moral and necessary campaign" and asserts that Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion achieved their core strategic objectives, halting Iran's advance toward nuclear weapons capability and significantly degrading its ballistic missile program. Jacob Nagel, writing in the Jerusalem Post, acknowledges that more could have been achieved but emphasizes that the campaign eliminated significant parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and production sites. Col. (Res.) Ryan Gitya, in the Jerusalem Post, argues that despite the absence of a decisive victory or regime change, Israel's geostrategic position has improved, citing the country's deep operational reach and the degradation of Iranian infrastructure. He also credits the combined US-Israel military effort, describing the coordination between the two militaries as exceptional.

Al Jazeera offers a starkly different perspective. Its analysis suggests that the war, which was intended to be short and controlled, turned into a 40-day war of attrition that failed to achieve the initial objectives of the United States and imposed heavy military, economic, and political costs. The outlet reports that the US miscalculated Iran's behavior and strategic evolution, including its willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz and target US bases across the region. Al Jazeera also argues that the war did not lead to de-escalation but rather to a redefinition of the conflict on a broader scale.

Key Claims

• The US and Israel's objective was to remove three threats: Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, and its network of proxy armies across the Middle East, as stated by Hanan Shai.
• Regime change was never formally defined as a goal of the war, according to Shai.
• The war improved Israel's geostrategic position, according to Col. (Res.) Ryan Gitya.
• The US and Israel's military effort was highly coordinated and effective, per Gitya.
• The war was a moral and necessary campaign, per David M. Weinberg.
• The campaign eliminated significant parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missile capabilities, according to Jacob Nagel and others.
• Iran's economy is in dire condition, and the war caused significant destruction to its industrial and export base, a claim carried by multiple Jerusalem Post writers.
• Al Jazeera reports that the war imposed heavy military, economic, and political costs on the US and that the US miscalculated Iran's behavior.
• Al Jazeera also states that the war redefined the conflict on a broader scale rather than leading to de-escalation.

Perspectives

Jerusalem Post (Israeli strategic community): The war was a just and necessary campaign that successfully degraded Iran's nuclear and missile programs, strengthened Israel's position, and demonstrated effective US-Israel military coordination. While not all objectives were achieved, the campaign shifted the strategic balance favorably.

Al Jazeera (MENA regional perspective): The war was a strategic deadlock. The US miscalculated Iran's behavior, leading to a prolonged conflict that imposed heavy costs on Washington and failed to achieve its initial objectives, while broadening the scope of the conflict.