Despite pummeling Iran, the leaders of the world’s two strongest air forces are fending off criticism from political opponents during a 14-day ceasefire. Results on the battlefield appear to be taking a backseat to political machinations.
The analysis of wars is changing in the 24-hour media and social media cycle. Tweets and press briefings can be more powerful weapons than missiles. How a particular post lands and reverberates can have just as powerful an influence on a war’s outcome.
In past wars, world leaders were not bombing via social media. This is particularly true of terror sponsors and their proxies. Public statements affect military posture. Wars—and more importantly, the perception of wars—are judged mercilessly on a minute-to-minute basis by commentators without military experience and with limited understanding of how diplomacy actually works.
Pundits can claim that Iran and its terror proxies have won a war, and millions around the world can buy into a warped narrative, even when it has no grounding in reality.
Immense war gains
Even if the military operation ends with the current ceasefire, the gains have been immense.
Together, the air forces of the United States and Israel struck thousands of targets with precision. The air forces neutralized Iran’s known and covert nuclear sites, as well as its ballistic missile production facilities—the two prevailing objectives of the war.
The dual existential threats of a nuclear weapon and tens of thousands of ballistic missiles capable of overwhelming Israel’s multilayer missile defense appear to have been eliminated.
The United States reports that Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities have been degraded by 90%. Additionally, the IDF reports that 70% of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers have been destroyed. Missiles cannot be fired without launchers, which are significantly more complex to produce than the missiles themselves.
‘Capital-V military victory’
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said this week that “‘Operation Epic Fury’ was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield, a capital-V military victory,” adding that it “decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat-ineffective for years to come.”
U.S. President Donald Trump said the war had been a “total and complete victory. 100%. No question about it.”
British broadcaster Piers Morgan responded to Hegseth’s assessment by claiming that “America/Israel may have won the war on the battlefield, but Iran won the war on the waterways, paralyzed the world’s energy supplies, and caused huge global economic damage. That’s why President Trump has moved to do a deal. It’s not a ‘historic victory’ or anything like it.”
Other commentators have made similar claims.
Trump responded on Truth Social that “the Fake News Media has lost total credibility, not that they had any to begin with. Because of their massive Trump Derangement Syndrome (Sometimes referred to as TDS!), they love saying that Iran is ‘winning’ when, in fact, everyone knows that they are LOSING, and LOSING BIG!”
He cited the destruction of Iranian naval and air capabilities, air-defense systems, radar and missile and drone factories, as well as the loss of senior leadership figures.
‘Battle is not yet over’
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone to great lengths to present the war gains to the Israeli public, but has stopped short of calling the campaign the “total victory” that he has vowed to lead at earlier points in the war, telling Israelis this week that “the battle is not yet over.”
Netanyahu stated that the war has provided “massive achievements,” calling it a “historic change,” noting that Israel and the United States “crushed the nuclear program. We crushed the missiles, and we crushed the regime.”
Many Israelis are wary that a ceasefire is a good idea or can hold beyond the stated two-week time frame—even as Israeli parents are glad to send their children back to school after a six-week hiatus.
Within Israel, longtime opponents of Netanyahu have been quick to call the ceasefire a defeat for the allies.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid called the ceasefire a “military success turned into a diplomatic disaster.” This is the same Lapid, who in October 2022—while serving as a temporary caretaker prime minister with limited powers ahead of an election—gave away a valuable strategic natural gas reserve in strategic waters to Lebanon, to supposedly “stave off” a war with Hezbollah.
A senior defense correspondent for Israel’s Channel 13 said Netanyahu’s claims that Iran is weaker than ever are “half-truths,” alleging that “Iran came out stronger from this war” and has emerged as a regional power.
It is no coincidence that those who have been criticizing Netanyahu for years are the ones criticizing him now. Israel is heading to an election before the end of the year.
Israel’s major diplomatic achievement
Flying side-by-side for six weeks with the U.S. Air Force—the most powerful in the world by orders of magnitude—against a common enemy represents a major diplomatic achievement for Israel. It reflects decades of efforts by Netanyahu to strengthen U.S.-Israel ties and highlight the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran.
There is no way that Israel could have possibly achieved the level of destruction inflicted on Iran on its own without the United States. Aside from military bases across the region, aircraft carriers, naval attack vessels and fighter jets, the United States brought dozens of refueling planes into the theater.
Israel, by contrast, has only a limited refueling fleet. Throughout the military campaign, Israeli jets were continuously connected to American refueling planes over the region. Without that refueling capacity, Israel would have been able to fly just a fraction of sorties.
What the two air forces accomplished together would have taken Israel months had it gone alone. And Israel likely would have been forced to absorb incoming ballistic missiles for the duration.
Israeli resilience
The resilience of the Israeli home front is a significant component of the nation’s defense, and a critical calculation when determining the length of any campaign. Israel’s ability to sustain an extended war is directly linked to the civilian population’s readiness to head in and out of bomb shelters.
Israelis put up valiantly with Iran’s ballistic missile fire. But parents of school-age children were celebrating when the ceasefire was reached and homefront command announced that school would resume after a six-week hiatus.
Bombing alongside the United States shortened the campaign’s timeframe dramatically.
Any Israeli prime minister would have chosen to bomb together with America—even if it was known from the outset that the United States would only commit to a conflict of 4-6 weeks, and possibly end the campaign before a complete Iranian surrender.
Those who criticize Netanyahu for the (so-far temporary) ceasefire that Trump declared take for granted that Trump committed to fly alongside Israel to begin with.
Furthermore, the notion that Israel was blindsided by Trump’s ceasefire is absurd. The level of coordination—both military and diplomatic—between the two allies is unprecedented. Earlier in the conflict, Netanyahu and Trump each intimated that they were speaking on a daily basis.
Israel as a top-flight ally
Bombing side-by-side with the United States has had benefits beyond the Iranian theater. Firstly, the United States has seen firsthand how exceptional Israel’s air force is. America has been duly impressed with Israel’s pilots—not a single Israeli plane or pilot was lost in six weeks of war.
Plus, America has marveled at Israeli upgrades to the American-made hardware it uses. This includes significant software enhancements, as well as the rigging of Israel’s F35i Adir fighter jets to carry more fuel, dramatically extending the plane’s flight range.
Israel has also demonstrated how valuable it is as an intelligence gatherer and provider. The United States has relied heavily on Israeli intelligence, including on its own portion of air missions. It is widely believed that Israeli intelligence in the Middle East is at far-superior levels to that of the United States.
Hegseth has repeatedly praised Israel’s performance as an ally, particularly notable given Israel’s relatively small size compared to the United States. The U.S. is a republic of 50 large states. Israel, with only 10 million citizens, is the size of just one of the U.S.’s smallest states: New Jersey.
Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer often posited that Israel would prove to be America’s most important ally in the current decade. Those predictions have never proved more prescient.
Many choose to grade U.S.-Israel relations on the political relationships between Netanyahu and Trump, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Republicans on one side versus Netanyahu and former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, former V.P. Kamala Harris and Democrats on the other side. Yet, this is a short-sided understanding of the relationship.
Deep behind the politics is a military-intelligence alliance unlike any other. No American ally could have possibly flown as competently alongside the U.S. Air Force and provided as much valuable intelligence as Israel. As much as Israel-bashers would like for America to distance itself from the Jewish state, the joint air campaign further cements the alliance.
‘Roaring Lion,’ not paper tiger
Beyond Washington, other countries are closely watching Israel’s military performance. Joint operations with the United States have strengthened Israel’s reputation as a regional power. Israel’s adversaries have observed that the Jewish state is a “Roaring Lion”—the name of Israel’s operation—rather than a paper tiger. Gulf states are likely to take note of Israel’s demonstrated willingness to defend regional security interests.
Israel’s prowess and capabilities stand in stark comparison to those of European nations.
Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have expressed their profound disappointment with European powers, particularly the United Kingdom, France and Spain, while the United States is threatening the breakup of the NATO alliance and shuttering American bases across Europe.
Yet European powers, in particular Germany, are signing up not only to utilize Israel’s proven, sophisticated missile defense systems, but even to manufacture Israeli interceptors. Spoiler: even Spain, one of the most vocal Israel bashers, contracts advanced Israeli weapons systems via Germany.
The ceasefire may not hold
Meanwhile, the war may not be over. Even if the ceasefire holds longer than the proposed 14-day window, fighting may resume in the not-too-distant future.
Trump declared a 14-day ceasefire to give Iran the chance to negotiate a way out of the punishment it has absorbed for the past six weeks. But negotiations between Trump and Iran have a recent track record of ending without a settlement, followed by an immediate military campaign.
Back in April 2024, Trump gave Iran a 60-day window to negotiate the end to its nuclear program. On the 61st day, the “12-Day War” was underway. Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, which culminated with America’s “Operation Midnight Hammer” and the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow.
In February, after America and Israel watched Iran attempt to restart its nuclear program and accelerate its ballistic missile production, Trump again gave Iran 10 days to negotiate. When negotiations broke down, “Operation Epic Fury” was launched.
The president is now giving Iran 14 days to negotiate. For Iran, the third time may not be the charm.
Possible benefits of negotiations
Entering into negotiations—however likely or unlikely they are to succeed—may provide benefits. For one, America wants to figure out how badly the chain of command in Iran was broken and if the faction it is currently negotiating with has consolidated control over the country.
If Iran completely stops firing ballistic missiles and drones across the region and allows boats to sail unimpeded through the Straits of Hormuz for 14 days, then it is clear they are in control. Once control is established, negotiations can determine whether Iran’s new top leaders are more reasonable actors.
Trump would be pleased if the new top echelons recognize that nuclear ambitions and ballistic missiles will be the permanent downfall of the Islamic Republic. As Netanyahu stated during previous rounds of negotiations with Iran—as well as with Hamas—either they can disarm the easy way or they can be disarmed the hard way.
Shifting leverage
Where Netanyahu may have exhibited a tactical edge over Trump is that he has consistently favored negotiating while the enemy remains under fire. Trump and Hegseth have insisted that Iran “begged” America for a ceasefire. That may be true. But the moment a ceasefire is declared, Iran’s perceived leverage changes.
Iran’s leaders may now be hedging that Trump is as eager for the war to stop as they are. In their view, that levels the playing field. It may soon prove to be a deadly gamble, and fighting may quickly resume.
Yet at the same time, statements made in public often differ substantially from closed-door realities. Iran’s present leadership may prove to be slightly more reasonable than their predecessors.
Of course, even if a diplomatic accommodation is reached, in the Middle East, negotiated settlements are often not worth the paper they are printed on. See: Iran’s signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Opponents who never admit defeat
Israel and the United States are confronting adversaries with a culture of martyrdom. Death and destruction do not equal downfall, in their calculation. They refuse to admit defeat, even when punished to the point of near-obliteration.
Take Hamas in Gaza, for example. In a two-year military campaign since Hamas’s opening terror massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel destroyed 70% of the buildings in Gaza. Most of Gaza’s population lives in tents.
Hamas no longer has rockets to fire at Israel. More than half of its terror tunnel infrastructure has been destroyed. Hamas poses zero military threat to the Israeli home front and won’t for many years. Israel now controls more than half of the entire Gaza Strip.
But Hamas claims to have won because a few thousand terrorists still run around with machine guns and continue to dominate the suffering, unarmed population.
If this is what Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran consider a victory, then they should continue winning this way for the next 100 years.
On the road to regime change?
For Israel, a major stated goal was regime change. The opening strike of the war eliminated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Unlike the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and the assassination of Hezbollah Chief Hassan Nasrallah, Khamenei was an official head of state. Israel similarly assassinated Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani and numerous other members of Iran’s repressive and fanatical leadership.
As of this writing, it appears that a remnant of the regime remains. What is not known is how long they will be able to hold on to power.
The regime held in place by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps was already at its weakest point in decades before Operation Epic Fury. Supporters and critics of the war alike posited that it was unreasonable to expect regime change from the air. Unwilling or unable to place troops inside Iran to fight the IRGC on the ground, it remains to be seen whether the regime will ultimately crash.
If it is to fall, it will be at the hands of the Iranians themselves. Millions protested against the regime earlier this year, with the IRGC and Basij shock troops mowing down tens of thousands of defenseless protesters.
Throughout the air campaign, Iranians were urged by Israel, the United States and former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi to stay out of the streets. If the ceasefire holds, calls may come for Iranians to resume domestic protests and riots.
Arming the opposition
Just as in Gaza, where Hamas continues to cling to power due to its monopoly on machine guns, the IRGC maintains a significant coercive capacity inside Iran. Trump intimated last week that the United States had attempted to provide weapons to Iranian opposition elements, possibly through Kurdish intermediaries, but that the weapons did not reach their intended recipients.
In a statement to reporters, Trump stated that America had sent “a lot of guns” that were “supposed to go to the people so they could fight back against these thugs.”
He went on to accuse the transfer agents of not delivering the weapons to their intended destination. “The people that they sent them to kept them,” adding, “So I’m very upset with a certain group of people, and they’re going to pay a big price for that.”
Hopefully, the guns will soon find their intended destination. Should the regime fall in the months ahead, all of Israel’s goals would have been reached.
