Iran withstands Israeli aggression: Strategic miscalculations in Tel Aviv leave Washington isolated

Department of Research, Studies and International News 25-06-2025

After nearly two weeks of relentless airstrikes, the Israeli military campaign against Iran concluded with no substantial strategic gain, despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bold declaration that Tel Aviv had “achieved its objectives.” In reality, the operation fell well short of its stated aims, neither dismantling Iran’s nuclear program nor destabilizing its government.

At the outset of the offensive, Israeli leadership announced two primary goals: neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and triggering regime change in Tehran. However, both ambitions collapsed under the weight of flawed planning, miscalculated assumptions, and limited international support beyond the usual Western allies.

The claim of having “decapitated” the Iranian nuclear program is questionable at best. Intelligence suggests that Iran had already secured its critical nuclear material, relocating it from key sites such as the Fordow facility well before the strikes began. Although Washington did engage by deploying its so-called “bunker-buster” bombs, the assistance was minimal and mostly symbolic. Iran, in turn, remained resolute, offering no external access to evaluate the alleged damage, making Tel Aviv’s claim of success even harder to substantiate.

The second objective, to catalyze regime change by eliminating top figures in Iran’s security infrastructure, was an even greater miscalculation. Israel employed its long-preferred tactic of high-level assassinations, targeting senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This move, however, backfired dramatically. Rather than sparking dissent, the attacks galvanized the Iranian population, many of whom, despite political grievances with the government, viewed the foreign aggression as a threat to national sovereignty.

Even Iranians critical of the IRGC found themselves rallying around the state. Instead of isolating the regime, the strikes united citizens across political divides in defense of their country. The image of a sovereign nation under siege, rather than a government under scrutiny, ultimately emerged as the dominant narrative both domestically and internationally.

Israel’s symbolic strikes on government-linked sites such as Evin Prison and the national broadcaster (IRIB) were likewise poorly received. Claiming these were in support of Iranian dissenters, Tel Aviv only exacerbated the situation for political prisoners, many of whom were moved to undisclosed locations following the bombings. Rather than undermining Tehran’s narrative, Israel bolstered it, portraying itself as an aggressor and Iran as a resilient nation under unlawful attack.

The idea that these attacks helped restore Israel’s international image or shift focus away from its brutal campaign in Gaza is highly debatable. Although U.S. President Donald Trump endorsed limited strikes on Iranian infrastructure, Washington’s role remained tepid. After dropping munitions, American bombers immediately returned home, underscoring the lack of genuine commitment to a broader conflict.

Trump’s rhetoric before and after the operation emphasized his desire for renewed negotiations with Tehran, including a potential trilateral framework involving Israel. This signaled clearly that Washington’s actions were driven more by short-term strategic maneuvering and Gulf ally appeasement than by a firm alliance with Tel Aviv’s war aims.

Globally, reaction to the strikes was restrained. While figures like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz repeated predictable affirmations of “Israel’s right to self-defense,” no major power backed Tel Aviv’s demand that Iran be permanently banned from uranium enrichment. Instead, the international consensus quickly reverted to the established line: Iran must not build nuclear weapons, something Tehran had already committed to.

Crucially, global markets and political observers continued to treat Iran as a legitimate actor, particularly in economic and diplomatic matters. This represents a strategic win for Tehran and an unmistakable diplomatic failure for Israel. Iran’s posture was defensive, its retaliation measured, and its messaging consistent, a combination that earned it global sympathy, if not support.

Militarily, Israel paid a heavy price. Despite temporarily achieving air superiority over Iranian skies, it could not prevent Tehran’s retaliatory missile barrages, which overwhelmed Israel’s much-vaunted air defense systems. Missiles penetrated deep into Israeli territory, halting daily life, destroying infrastructure, and causing significant casualties. The depletion of Israeli interceptor stockpiles and the strain on its economy exposed the vulnerability behind its high-tech military image.

Iran, while absorbing considerable damage, proved capable of inflicting serious costs in return, both materially and psychologically. Even as missiles fell and bombers roared overhead, the Islamic Republic stood firm, controlling escalation and avoiding full-scale war. Notably, Tehran’s warning before its strike on a U.S. base in Qatar demonstrated strategic maturity and effective crisis management.

In the end, Israel’s campaign achieved none of its strategic goals. Iran emerged battered but unbroken, its leadership intact, its deterrent capabilities validated, and its diplomatic hand strengthened. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv’s aggression only further isolated it from a world increasingly unwilling to accept American-backed militarism as a tool for regional hegemony.