How will the war end?
Benjamin Netanyahu has placed the Iranian regime, the Wilayat al-Faqih system, before a fateful challenge through a harsh pre-emptive strike. While extremely risky, the strike was not decisive enough to settle the confrontation. Netanyahu himself did not expect that an ideological-nationalist regime like Iran's would surrender and offer immediate concessions following the strike, without launching a retaliatory blow against Israel.
Despite Iran's unprecedented powerful strikes on Tel Aviv, the reformist current in Iran, represented by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has also demonstrated its continued commitment to 'the negotiating table' and to finding a way out of this war. Iran has deliberately avoided using its full missile capabilities against Israel to prevent the battle from reaching the point of no return.
Current indicators suggest that this war will likely not last long, nor will it expand geographically, because the destruction costs—for both sides—are immense. For Iran, this includes damage to its oil facilities, which are the backbone of its economy, as well as the protection of what remains of its nuclear program and infrastructure. For Israel, the fact that Iran managed to breach the Iron Dome and cause major direct damage in the heart of Tel Aviv and Haifa presents a reality that Israelis cannot endure.
In this light, there will likely come a tipping point at which both parties will be willing to end the conflict. The timing of that moment will be decided by the U.S. administration, which will step in to halt the military escalation. But when will this moment arrive? It will come when both sides realise that they can no longer achieve significant additional objectives, and that the cost of continuing the conflict far outweighs the cost of stopping it, especially given that a so-called "knockout blow" is impossible in such existential wars.
On the Israeli side, there are two major areas of superiority: First, Israel's air force has successfully destroyed much of Iran's air defense systems, allowing it to operate freely over Tehran and strike targets at will. Second, intelligence penetration, which could lead to further surprises that may force the Iranians to retreat or make subsequent concessions. However, Israel's major vulnerability lies in its inability to withstand sustained, large-scale missile attacks, especially after a prolonged multi-front military conflict.
As for Iran, it has two primary objectives in the current military confrontation: To preserve the political legitimacy of the Wilayat al-Faqih regime, which is built on religious ideology and propaganda. Failing to respond or retreating now would reflect poorly internally and could erode the regime's very source of legitimacy. To protect Iran's deterrence capacity and prevent its regional standing from deteriorating—especially after losing the bulk of its regional influence in the aftermath of 'Flood of al-Aqsa' (the Gaza war).
American intervention, whether military or diplomatic, will be decisive in ending this conflict. It is evident that President Donald Trump prefers a negotiated path, aiming for political, military, and economic gains. Netanyahu, however, is betting that a major military defeat for the Iranian regime will lead not only to concessions on its nuclear program (the primary stated objective) but potentially to changing or collapsing the regime itself, thereby neutralizing it within the regional power structure. This would constitute a strategic shift in the regional security equation in Israel's favour.
Direct US military involvement remains unlikely, except in two scenarios: If Israel were to request assistance after a massive and successful missile strike against its territory. If the U.S. concludes that Iran will not back down unless there is a more dramatic shift in the military balance of power that compels it to return to the negotiating table and offer substantial concessions.
This equation was not the same two years ago. Back then, Iran had greater geopolitical space and extensive tools of influence in the region. However, what has occurred with the fall of Bashar al-Assad's corridor (the Syrian axis), and the diminished power of Hezbollah and Hamas, has cost Iran critical advantages in the regional balance of power. After this war, there will be significant consequences even for Iran's remaining influence in Iraq, which may become the final outpost lost by Tehran, ending a twenty-year effort (since the 2003 invasion of Iraq) to weave its intricate carpet of regional influence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Roya News
an hour ago
- Roya News
Rising maritime risks in Strait of Hormuz threaten global energy supply
The threat level in and around the Strait of Hormuz has been raised to 'high' amid escalating hostilities between Iran and 'Israel', according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). This strategic waterway, vital for global energy shipments, is now under increased risk of disruption as tensions mount in the region. In a statement released on June 17, 2025, UKMTO warned of a 'significant threat' in the Arabian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and northern Arabian Sea due to ongoing attacks involving Iran and 'Israel'. The agency also highlighted a surge in electronic interference affecting ships' navigation and automatic tracking systems, complicating safe maritime passage. Despite these risks, UKMTO confirmed that commercial shipping through the Strait remains operational, with no verified reports of closure. However, all vessels are urged to exercise caution and promptly report any incidents of electronic jamming or navigational disruption. Crucial global energy chokepoint The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints, serving as a narrow gateway between Iran and Oman. Approximately 20 million barrels of crude oil transit this passage daily, accounting for nearly 20 percent of global oil shipments, alongside about 20 percent of the world's liquefied natural gas (LNG). Its strategic significance makes the Strait a focal point during geopolitical crises, especially amid rising tensions between Iran and countries aligned with the West. Recent 'Israeli' airstrikes against Iranian targets have heightened fears that Tehran might retaliate by targeting this critical waterway — a threat Iran has raised multiple times before. Iran's Previous Threats and Strategic Calculations Iranian parliament member Esmail Kowsari recently told local media that 'closing the Strait of Hormuz is under study,' signaling Tehran's readiness to make 'the best decision with firmness.' While no direct action has been taken yet, this announcement has raised alarm in global energy markets and shipping industries. Historically, Iran has threatened to close the Strait during periods of heightened tension, notably in 2011, 2012, and 2018, but has never followed through. Experts argue such a move would backfire on Iran, severely disrupting its own imports and essential supplies, as well as hurting its allies. Changing Dynamics in Global Energy Trade Over the past two decades, Gulf oil exports to the United States and European Union have dropped dramatically, while China has emerged as the dominant importer. Between 2001 and 2022, China's imports of Gulf oil soared by more than 800 percent, making it the largest buyer of Iranian crude. This shift gives China a critical stake in the Strait's security. Analysts believe Beijing would strongly oppose any disruption that could spike oil prices or threaten supply. Energy analyst Ellen Wald noted, 'If Iran closes the Strait, it would anger China—its key energy partner. Beijing would likely exert heavy political and economic pressure on Tehran to keep the waterway open.' Rising electronic warfare threats Beyond the physical threat of a blockade, maritime authorities have reported increased electronic jamming and interference in the Gulf. Ships navigating the region have experienced GPS and Automated Identification System (AIS) disruptions, complicating safe passage. The U.S.-led Combined Maritime Forces' Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC) reported escalating electronic interference near the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and across the Strait of Hormuz. This interference undermines ships' ability to transmit accurate location data, posing significant navigational challenges. Outlook: Fragile passage in an unstable region While a total closure of the Strait of Hormuz remains unlikely due to practical and strategic reasons, the heightened threat level underscores the vulnerability of this critical maritime corridor. Just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, the Strait holds enormous influence over global energy security. As Iran and 'Israel' continue their cycle of attacks and threats, global shipping companies, oil markets, and governments remain on high alert for any further escalations that could disrupt one of the world's busiest and most vital energy routes.
Ammon
4 hours ago
- Ammon
White House: Trump has stated his opposition to Iranian nuclear since 2011
Ammon News - The White House published a series of statements by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding his warnings about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. The White House stated on its official website that President Trump has warned against Iran possessing a nuclear weapon since his first term, which began in 2016. It added that the president has made this statement at least 12 times since assuming his new term, while his campaign statements, which began in 2011, have demonstrated opposition to the Iranian nuclear program, considering it a top priority for him as a candidate and president. Some of Trump's previous statements: 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It's very simple — you don't have to go to too deep into it. They just can't have a nuclear weapon.' (6/17/25) 'I want Iran to be a wonderful, great, happy country — but they can't have a nuclear weapon.' (4/11/25) 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are the greatest single threat to our country, but to the entire world.' (11/3/24)
Ammon
5 hours ago
- Ammon
How will the war end?
Benjamin Netanyahu has placed the Iranian regime, the Wilayat al-Faqih system, before a fateful challenge through a harsh pre-emptive strike. While extremely risky, the strike was not decisive enough to settle the confrontation. Netanyahu himself did not expect that an ideological-nationalist regime like Iran's would surrender and offer immediate concessions following the strike, without launching a retaliatory blow against Israel. Despite Iran's unprecedented powerful strikes on Tel Aviv, the reformist current in Iran, represented by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has also demonstrated its continued commitment to 'the negotiating table' and to finding a way out of this war. Iran has deliberately avoided using its full missile capabilities against Israel to prevent the battle from reaching the point of no return. Current indicators suggest that this war will likely not last long, nor will it expand geographically, because the destruction costs—for both sides—are immense. For Iran, this includes damage to its oil facilities, which are the backbone of its economy, as well as the protection of what remains of its nuclear program and infrastructure. For Israel, the fact that Iran managed to breach the Iron Dome and cause major direct damage in the heart of Tel Aviv and Haifa presents a reality that Israelis cannot endure. In this light, there will likely come a tipping point at which both parties will be willing to end the conflict. The timing of that moment will be decided by the U.S. administration, which will step in to halt the military escalation. But when will this moment arrive? It will come when both sides realise that they can no longer achieve significant additional objectives, and that the cost of continuing the conflict far outweighs the cost of stopping it, especially given that a so-called "knockout blow" is impossible in such existential wars. On the Israeli side, there are two major areas of superiority: First, Israel's air force has successfully destroyed much of Iran's air defense systems, allowing it to operate freely over Tehran and strike targets at will. Second, intelligence penetration, which could lead to further surprises that may force the Iranians to retreat or make subsequent concessions. However, Israel's major vulnerability lies in its inability to withstand sustained, large-scale missile attacks, especially after a prolonged multi-front military conflict. As for Iran, it has two primary objectives in the current military confrontation: To preserve the political legitimacy of the Wilayat al-Faqih regime, which is built on religious ideology and propaganda. Failing to respond or retreating now would reflect poorly internally and could erode the regime's very source of legitimacy. To protect Iran's deterrence capacity and prevent its regional standing from deteriorating—especially after losing the bulk of its regional influence in the aftermath of 'Flood of al-Aqsa' (the Gaza war). American intervention, whether military or diplomatic, will be decisive in ending this conflict. It is evident that President Donald Trump prefers a negotiated path, aiming for political, military, and economic gains. Netanyahu, however, is betting that a major military defeat for the Iranian regime will lead not only to concessions on its nuclear program (the primary stated objective) but potentially to changing or collapsing the regime itself, thereby neutralizing it within the regional power structure. This would constitute a strategic shift in the regional security equation in Israel's favour. Direct US military involvement remains unlikely, except in two scenarios: If Israel were to request assistance after a massive and successful missile strike against its territory. If the U.S. concludes that Iran will not back down unless there is a more dramatic shift in the military balance of power that compels it to return to the negotiating table and offer substantial concessions. This equation was not the same two years ago. Back then, Iran had greater geopolitical space and extensive tools of influence in the region. However, what has occurred with the fall of Bashar al-Assad's corridor (the Syrian axis), and the diminished power of Hezbollah and Hamas, has cost Iran critical advantages in the regional balance of power. After this war, there will be significant consequences even for Iran's remaining influence in Iraq, which may become the final outpost lost by Tehran, ending a twenty-year effort (since the 2003 invasion of Iraq) to weave its intricate carpet of regional influence.
