Israel-Iran war: ‘Victory’ on both sides, but what was achieved?

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pictures: AFP

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The fighting between Israel and Iran has stopped, for the present at least. Israeli and US aircraft bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, unthinkable two years ago, are now part of the political landscape.

And once the red line has been crossed, it becomes much easier to do it subsequently.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has claimed that all his strategic aims were achieved prior to the ceasefire. The country’s technical superiority, intelligence-gathering capabilities, and tactical planning were all once again on display. Air strikes carried out over the past 18 months and as part of the opening phase of this air campaign rendered ineffective much of Iran’s air defence capabilities.

A range of senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists and their families were killed. Many of Iran’s launchers and launch sites have been destroyed, along with its missile, rocket and drone stocks. Its antiquated air force has been decimated and several other military and industrial sites have been destroyed or badly damaged.

Netanyahu also claimed that Israel has sent Iran’s nuclear program “down the drain” and that through diplomatic efforts he was able to achieve Washington’s active participation in attacking Iran in support of Israel.

For its part Iran claimed to have imposed the ceasefire on Israel rather than it being imposed on them. In reality, Iran’s defensive weakness has been exposed for all to see. But Tehran’s ability to survive Israel’s surprise attack, and then to mount a sustained aerial counter-attack, will allow it to claim a victory of sorts, which is enough for the regime at this stage.

Exactly what was achieved by both sides awaits a future verdict. The damage done to Iran’s nuclear program will become better known in the coming weeks and months. At the moment, depending on whose argument you are listening to, Iran’s nuclear capability was either obliterated or set back by only a few months.

The longer-term impact of Israel’s actions will play out over time. Iran’s conventional military weaknesses were readily exposed, Israeli intelligence penetration of Iran highlighted once again, its non-state allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen remained silent or quiet, and Tehran received precious little political support from the international community.

But Iran threw some punches after the initial shock of the Israeli attack was overcome, which has played to Iranian nationalist sentiment. The Iranian regime now has some big strategic questions it needs to find answers to. From how it can rebuild and modernise its conventional military forces through to the very nature of the state. Questions about the continuing utility of Khomeini’s concept of the Supreme Leader arise from time to time, but given the ageing incumbent possible reforms to the system may need to be aerated sooner rather than later.

Tehran’s misgivings about Washington’s willingness to negotiate in good faith have increased exponentially. Whether Tehran engages in talks with Washington, continues to allow international inspectors or stays a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be hotly debated. Rather than setting back Iran’s nuclear program the strikes may drive it further underground.

As with many conflicts, one of the first casualties was the truth. Or at least the ability to discern it. Israel’s urgency to strike was based on a claim that Iran’s nuclear program posed an imminent threat, which wasn’t supported by Washington’s intelligence assessment.

This short military campaign was a big gamble by Netanyahu, but it isn’t yet clear that it paid off. Israel’s initial surprise attack, Netanyahu’s ability to engage the US and Israel’s air defences will have played well domestically. But the premise on which he ordered the attacks and their success will be more closely examined in the weeks ahead. If either are found wanting his decisiveness could easily be portrayed as recklessness.