Israel and the illusion of deferred victory.. Why is force unable to decide? | policy

Despite the massive strikes directed by Israel against Iran and the ongoing attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, Israeli analyzes reveal a growing debate about whether these wars have achieved the goals for which they were launched.

Analysts point out that the military operations have not ended the threats on the various fronts, warning that Israel will slide into open wars of attrition that lack a clear horizon for resolution.

The report reviews Israeli newspapers’ reading of the outcomes of these three wars, starting from the following question: Why does Israeli military power not turn into a decisive victory on these fronts?

War on Iran

In an article in Ynet newspaper, Israeli researcher and former officer Michael Milstein says that the ongoing negotiations regarding an agreement with Iran appear to be the most serious so far, but the crystallized formula raises deep concern in Israel.

According to reports, the agreement is based on an American pledge to completely stop military operations against Tehran, lift the naval blockade, and open the Strait of Hormuz, provided that the nuclear file will be discussed at a later stage.

Milstein adds that basic issues that were supposed to be part of “subjugating” Iran were absent from the proposed understandings, most notably Iranian long-range missiles and Tehran’s regional agents.

On the other hand, journalist Amit Segal believes, in an article in the Israel Hayom newspaper, that despite the “disappointment” regarding the expected agreement between Washington and Tehran, the Israeli military operation achieved “a strategic achievement that should not be underestimated” because Iran has become weaker, more fragile and poorer today than it was before.

However, he acknowledges at the same time that the front is still open and that the public feels disappointed, because the Israelis were promised this time “absolute victory” when the war began.

Lebanon and Gaza

Aside from Tehran, the Israeli press also discusses the course of military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, as Haaretz considers that instead of Israel recognizing the limits of its military power in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, it continues to expand the battlefields in them, seeking to achieve goals that it has failed to reach for about two years.

In its editorial, Haaretz describes the war in Lebanon as “absurd and futile,” noting that no one knows its true goals, consequences, or when it will end, calling for an immediate end to the war.

The newspaper also warns that the renewal of the war in Gaza portends bad outcomes. What Israel was unable to achieve during a war that lasted more than two years of indiscriminate mass killing and systematic destruction of towns, villages, neighborhoods and refugee camps, it will not achieve in another round of killing and destruction.

In his evaluation of the war on Lebanon, the Vice President of Tel Aviv University, Professor Eyal Zisser, believes that Israel is committing “all possible mistakes” in Lebanon, pointing to what he described as “strategic failures” of Israeli military operations, especially with regard to dealing with the Shiite environment in the country.

Zisser added – during an interview with Radio 103 FM – that Israel was foolishly drawn into a war of attrition in southern Lebanon, explaining that Israeli forces are operating at a limited distance behind the front line and the border and continue to suffer losses among the soldiers, according to the Jerusalem Post newspaper.

Deferred victory

In a related context, a report by the security and military affairs correspondent of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Lilach Shoval, highlights the scenarios for the outbreak of a new war between Tel Aviv and Tehran.

The newspaper indicates that the Israeli home front is preparing for the possibility of a third war with Iran, amid estimates that Tehran will try in the next war to launch its missiles towards Israel at a faster pace than it did in the previous two wars.

The report explains that if Iran needed 18 hours to respond in the June 2025 war, and two hours and 50 minutes in the February war, then the home front expects the next Iranian response to be faster than before.

Regarding the future vision for the three fronts, Milstein says that the proposed arrangements regarding Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza may reshape the regional battle, but they do not promise the decisive victory that Israel sought, while the alternative is an open war of attrition without a clear strategic end.

The researcher believes that recent developments highlight lessons that Tel Aviv has long ignored. Notable military achievements remain worthless without a strategy, the enemy takes hits without disappearing, and control of territory does not necessarily provide long-term security.

The writer concludes that all emerging agreements involve great challenges, but the currently proposed alternative is a war of attrition on multiple fronts with no time limit and no clear goal, stressing that “there are no absolute victories” in the current reality.