Jerusalem (AFP) – After decades of urging the United States to attack Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally got his wish. But after six months of inconclusive hostilities, Israel may ultimately find itself in a worse position than it was before the war.
Issued on: 25/08/2026 - RFI
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cast Iran as an existential threat to his country © ilia YEFIMOVICH / AFP/File
The Islamic republic, which Netanyahu has long cast as an existential threat, has not only survived but appears emboldened.
Underlying Netanyahu's dilemma have been the wild swings in the approach of US President Donald Trump, who joined Israel in launching the conflict in late February, but by April abruptly called a ceasefire and sought a negotiated settlement in the face of souring public opinion and soaring oil prices.
"It's a colossal failure of Israeli strategy regarding Iran," said Danny Citrinowicz, a former top Israeli intelligence analyst on Iran who is now at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies.
"Yes, we had operational achievements, but strategically we've failed."
Israel on the very first day killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader who ruthlessly suppressed dissent in Iran, including mass protests earlier this year, and backed virulently anti-Israeli groups like Hamas, which led the October 7, 2023 attacks.
But Khamenei was also seen as holding back on full-blown pursuit of nuclear weapons, a reluctance that could now end if the Islamic republic feels it has lost its conventional deterrents.
While Trump has recently declared economic warfare on Iran and periodically ordered new strikes, he has voiced support for a deal that would see sanctions relief.
Netanyahu had adamantly rejected a 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by then-president Barack Obama.
Citrinowicz said Israel now had a choice between accepting a new nuclear deal that would strengthen Iran, or trying to weaken it further and increasing the risk that it will seek a nuclear weapon.
"Israel is trying to do both but it's not going to work," he said.
Degrading vs toppling
An extraordinary 92 percent of Israelis believe Iran won or gained more from the conflict, according to a June survey by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in collaboration with the Agam Institute -- a warning sign for Netanyahu ahead of October 27 elections.
Netanyahu had said he was hoping to "create conditions for regime change" but did not explicitly make toppling the Islamic republic his goal.
Instead, some see Netanyahu following an Israeli playbook witnessed in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria -- inflict overwhelming damage that will allow Israel to return and attack later as it sees fit, a strategy the country euphemistically calls "mowing the grass".
"Netanyahu doesn't see this as a loss. He has the United States directly at war with Iran, with Israel for now on the sidelines," one foreign diplomat based in Israel told AFP on condition of anonymity.
Iranian counter-strikes killed 25 people in Israel and four in the occupied West Bank, but Iran has focused its fire more recently on Gulf Arab states that provide bases for US troops.
Alex Grinberg, a senior fellow focused on Iran at the Turan Research Center, said the war set back Iran significantly by eliminating infrastructure and people in the nuclear programme and imposing massive economic damage.
"I think Israel did achieve its strategic goals, meaning denying the Iranian regime the strategic capacity to threaten Israel," he said, while casting doubt on the prospects for a favourable US-Iran deal.
The Islamic republic, which Netanyahu has long cast as an existential threat, has not only survived but appears emboldened.
Underlying Netanyahu's dilemma have been the wild swings in the approach of US President Donald Trump, who joined Israel in launching the conflict in late February, but by April abruptly called a ceasefire and sought a negotiated settlement in the face of souring public opinion and soaring oil prices.
"It's a colossal failure of Israeli strategy regarding Iran," said Danny Citrinowicz, a former top Israeli intelligence analyst on Iran who is now at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies.
"Yes, we had operational achievements, but strategically we've failed."
Israel on the very first day killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader who ruthlessly suppressed dissent in Iran, including mass protests earlier this year, and backed virulently anti-Israeli groups like Hamas, which led the October 7, 2023 attacks.
But Khamenei was also seen as holding back on full-blown pursuit of nuclear weapons, a reluctance that could now end if the Islamic republic feels it has lost its conventional deterrents.
While Trump has recently declared economic warfare on Iran and periodically ordered new strikes, he has voiced support for a deal that would see sanctions relief.
Netanyahu had adamantly rejected a 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by then-president Barack Obama.
Citrinowicz said Israel now had a choice between accepting a new nuclear deal that would strengthen Iran, or trying to weaken it further and increasing the risk that it will seek a nuclear weapon.
"Israel is trying to do both but it's not going to work," he said.
Degrading vs toppling
An extraordinary 92 percent of Israelis believe Iran won or gained more from the conflict, according to a June survey by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in collaboration with the Agam Institute -- a warning sign for Netanyahu ahead of October 27 elections.
Netanyahu had said he was hoping to "create conditions for regime change" but did not explicitly make toppling the Islamic republic his goal.
Instead, some see Netanyahu following an Israeli playbook witnessed in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria -- inflict overwhelming damage that will allow Israel to return and attack later as it sees fit, a strategy the country euphemistically calls "mowing the grass".
"Netanyahu doesn't see this as a loss. He has the United States directly at war with Iran, with Israel for now on the sidelines," one foreign diplomat based in Israel told AFP on condition of anonymity.
Iranian counter-strikes killed 25 people in Israel and four in the occupied West Bank, but Iran has focused its fire more recently on Gulf Arab states that provide bases for US troops.
Alex Grinberg, a senior fellow focused on Iran at the Turan Research Center, said the war set back Iran significantly by eliminating infrastructure and people in the nuclear programme and imposing massive economic damage.
"I think Israel did achieve its strategic goals, meaning denying the Iranian regime the strategic capacity to threaten Israel," he said, while casting doubt on the prospects for a favourable US-Iran deal.
Risking public opinion
The war has already complicated Israel's relationship with its most crucial ally, and may preclude any possibility of a future reconciliation with the Iranian people.
The increasingly unpopular conflict triggered a surge of criticism of Israel in the United States, where its war against Hamas in Gaza had already dealt a heavy blow to its standing in the public eye.
Public perceptions of Israel inside Iran are difficult to gauge, as polling is difficult, but the two countries were allies before the Islamic revolution, and protests before the war indicated noticeable public opposition to the clerical government.
And while Netanyahu and Trump have both publicly professed to support the Iranian people, the US and Israel have issued apocalyptic threats over the course of the war that appeared to make little distinction between the Islamic republic and its citizens, and their strikes have destroyed infrastructure including top universities.
There is "a real possibility of lasting hostility towards Israel and the United States, particularly if the war is remembered through civilian casualties and damage to the country rather than solely through the removal of senior regime figures", said Liora Hendelman-Baavur, a senior research fellow at the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.
"That hostility would not necessarily restore the Islamic republic's legitimacy, but it could complicate future relations long after the present leadership has changed."
.jpg)
