Middle East Analysis: The Cost of a Fragile Peace

Categories: World News | Middle East Politics | International Diplomacy

In a war where there have been no winners, Israel’s prime minister looks set to be the biggest loser entering a fragile and vague ceasefire with Iran. After years of Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats against Iran, his stunts at the UN’s general assembly, the dodgy dossiers endlessly wafted under the noses of the world’s media, and diplomatic pressure on successive US presidents to agree to a war against Iran, Israel’s conflict has turned out to be a bust. The US intelligence community’s verdict that Israeli predictions of regime change and revolution in Iran were farcical turned out to be correct. The Israeli assessment that the war would last at best a handful of days, at worst a handful of weeks, was woefully wide of the mark. Even two days ago, according to Israel’s Channel 12, Netanyahu was pushing Donald Trump not to agree to a ceasefire. For a day, the US president issued his genocidal warnings to Tehran and then buckled, by some accounts sidelining Israel in his deliberations.

There has never been a political disaster like this in our entire history, Israel’s main opposition leader, Yair Lapid, wrote on X. Israel was not even close to the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our national security, he added. The army carried out everything that was asked of it, and the public showed remarkable resilience, but Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and did not achieve any of the goals he himself set. It will take us years to repair the political and strategic damage that Netanyahu caused due to arrogance, negligence, and lack of strategic planning. The head of the leftwing Democrats party, Yair Golan, also called the ceasefire a strategic failure by Netanyahu. He promised a historic victory and security for generations, and in practice, we got one of the most severe strategic failures Israel has ever known, Golan said on X. It’s a total failure that endangers Israel’s security for years to come.

The reality is that Netanyahu gambled everything on his war and in his failure to secure the fall of the theocratic regime, the seizure of Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, or meaningful state degradation, Israel’s global standing – already massively tarnished by its actions in Gaza, where it has been accused of committing a genocide – has been damaged. On the security side, despite Trump’s claims, the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has been strengthened as Tehran – for now, at least – has achieved its primary aim of simply surviving a month-long onslaught by two of the world’s largest military powers. The attacks have left a wounded but still intact regime, with significant military assets, which is likely to pursue rapid rearmament as it seeks opportunities to retaliate. Netanyahu’s insistence on continuing attacks in southern Lebanon also appears hubristic, given that Israel’s declared intention to carve out a new security zone puts its forces in direct conflict on the ground with Hezbollah fighters who have historically proved adept at fighting on their own terrain.

Seen in this context, Israel’s horrific and unwarned-of mass airstrikes on Lebanon seem like a punitive act of displacement, having been thwarted in Iran. The fallout in terms of public opinion and diplomacy is likely to be even more serious for Netanyahu and Israel. In America, in particular, a political consensus dating back to the 1960s is visibly crumbling. Israel’s role in pushing Trump to war in Iran has been assailed by both progressives and Maga’s far right, while support for Israel more broadly is at historic lows even among Jewish voters. Then there is the domestic fallout for Netanyahu in an election year in Israel. Far from transforming Israel’s security situation, he will come out of the war having achieved none of his main promised aims. Notwithstanding Netanyahu’s well-documented cynicism in broadcasting his usually temporary achievements, it will be apparent to Israelis that far from having removed what he has long described as an existential threat to Israel, the conditions remain largely unchanged.

The Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei may be dead, but his hardline son, Mojtaba, has succeeded him after a swift and opaque election process. Instead of closing the page on Iran’s nuclear programme, Tehran’s 10-point plan that Trump said was a workable basis for negotiations appears to include acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium – although Trump denied this was part of the deal. For now, at least, the terms of US-Iranian talks point to something closer to the framework of Barack Obama’s international nuclear deal – which Netanyahu worked so hard to sabotage and Trump pulled out of – than a new reality. For some, like Haaretz’s military affairs correspondent Amos Harel, failure was baked in to Netanyahu’s war plans. Many of the weaknesses shared by the current US administration and Israel’s system under Netanyahu came into view: a tendency to gamble based on unfounded wishful thinking, shallow and half-baked plans, disregard for experts, or the aggressive use of pressure to make them align their views with the wishes of the political leadership, Harel said.

It will be clear to Israelis, too, that the conflict that has unfolded over the past month was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to conduct a campaign at this scale with full US backing. Other flare-ups may occur but the chance of such sustained hostilities repeating seems remote. Trump balked at the point of most dangerous escalation including over the question of deploying ground troops, hugely unpopular in the US among voters in part because of the extreme cost, and highly damaging to the global economy. It will not have been lost on some that having secured his long-sought war – and seen it fail – Netanyahu is unlikely to get a redo with US backing. Given that has been an obsessive political selling point of the Israeli prime minister for years, one may ask: what now is the point of him? This is now the fourth time in a row – in Gaza, once in Lebanon and twice in Iran – that his boasts of total victory and the removal of existential threats have been exposed as empty promises, wrote Harel.

The broader geopolitical implications of this failed campaign are only just beginning to surface across the international landscape. Major global powers have watched the proceedings with a mixture of trepidation and eventual relief as the ceasefire took hold. However, the cost of the month-long conflict has been high for all parties involved in the region. Israel’s military might, while formidable, has not delivered the definitive conclusion that Netanyahu had so boldly promised. Instead, the Israeli public is left grappling with the reality of a persistent threat on their borders. The ceasefire, while halting the immediate rain of missiles, does little to resolve the underlying religious and political tensions. For the first time in decades, the strategic bond between Washington and Jerusalem appears to be under significant strain. This shift could redefine how future conflicts in the Middle East are managed by the international community.

Economic stability in the region has also been dealt a severe blow by the recent hostilities. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, even if temporary, sent ripples through the global energy markets. Traders and governments alike are now wary of the fragility inherent in the current geopolitical arrangements. Reconstruction in Iran will require vast resources, likely further complicating the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the lifting of sanctions. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Lebanon remains dire following the intensive bombardment of the last few days. Thousands of families have been displaced, seeking refuge in a country already struggling with deep economic woes. International aid organisations are calling for an immediate cessation of all hostilities to allow for humanitarian corridors. The lack of warning for major strikes has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups worldwide. These factors collectively contribute to a sense of profound uncertainty about the long-term stability of the Levant.

Netanyahu’s political future now hangs by a thread as domestic opposition continues to mount daily. The promises of a new era of security have been replaced by a familiar and wearying status quo. Protests have begun to sprout in major Israeli cities, reflecting a growing fatigue with perpetual military engagement. Voters are increasingly questioning whether the heavy price paid in blood and treasure was truly necessary. The prime minister’s critics argue that he prioritized his political survival over the strategic interests of the nation. As the election approaches, these narratives will likely dominate the national discourse and challenge his long-held authority. The narrative of total victory has been replaced by a sober assessment of limited and costly gains. For many, the ceasefire represents not a peace, but a pause in a cycle of violence. The next few months will be crucial in determining the path forward for the region.

Read More At>>