This operation's military, security, and political consequences remain incomplete and demand careful assessment once the dust has settled.
Israel’s declared and perceived objectives in its recent actions against Iran can be summarized as follows: the elimination of Iran’s nuclear programme, the curtailment of its military capabilities, reaffirmation of Israel’s military and political superiority in the region, consolidation of its claimed political right to employ preemptive force under the guise of self-defence; restoration of the regional and international standing of its intelligence apparatus; and destabilization of Iran’s political system to foment internal divisions.
The question that now arises is whether the evolution of events thus far reflects Israel’s success in achieving these ambitious goals.
In the initial days of the campaign, Israel’s media strategy proved highly effective in showcasing its intelligence and military capabilities. It swiftly announced the killing of key Iranian political and military figures and the targeting of critical sites in Iran while tightly controlling information about Israeli human and material losses.
Israel reportedly eliminated more than 20 prominent Iranian figures — political, military, and nuclear experts — and struck over 100 strategic sites, including military and nuclear command centres, power generators, and military camps.
This was accomplished using advanced military capabilities and with significant Western security support, delivering a notable blow to Iran’s overall capabilities without sustaining major military losses on Iranian territory. Nevertheless, Iran continued its missile strikes into Israel, inflicting damage that made clear to Israeli citizens they were engaged in a genuine war. The confrontation, therefore, remains unresolved.
It remains unclear to what extent Iran’s nuclear programme has been affected by the Israeli offensive, or the precise nature of the damage inflicted at the Natanz and Fordow facilities.
Dismantling such a programme would require the destruction of the nuclear materials essential for weapons development, the obliteration of the machinery used to produce them, and the elimination of the knowledge base enabling Iran to convert such materials into nuclear arms. There is, as yet, no tangible evidence that these conditions have been met — meaning Israel’s objective of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear programme has not been achieved.
Notably, Iran was able to reorganize its structures rapidly and persist in launching hundreds of missiles at Israel despite enduring more than a decade of Western sanctions. This demonstrates that, while Israel inflicted significant losses, it has not succeeded in dismantling Iran’s non-nuclear military capabilities.
Israel once again deemed itself entitled to violate the fundamental principles of international law and humanitarian norms by resorting to the unilateral, preemptive use of force — in blatant contravention of Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which prohibits such action. Its targeting of nuclear facilities also constitutes a grave breach of Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids attacks on nuclear installations.
This protocol is binding on most Western states, even as many of them continue to assert Israel’s right to self-defence, thereby undermining the credibility of international legal frameworks.
Perhaps Israel’s most notable success lies in restoring a significant measure of prestige to its military-intelligence apparatus, demonstrated by its deep penetration into Iran and its acquisition of highly precise and consequential intelligence.
This has left a lasting impression both regionally and internationally, particularly following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh inside a heavily guarded Revolutionary Guard compound in Tehran — clear evidence of serious vulnerabilities within Iran’s political and institutional structures. It is worth noting, however, that Iran has also succeeded in conducting intelligence operations within Israel, albeit on a more limited scale.
Once the guns fall silent, it is both natural and necessary for governments and societies to conduct a thorough reassessment of the situation, measuring the scope and nature of the losses sustained and their implications. It is now evident that Israel has yet to achieve one of Netanyahu’s central objectives: regime change in Iran.
It also remains unclear whether Iran’s future policies will lean toward greater flexibility in light of its substantial losses or whether it will adopt a more hardline stance under pressure from factions blaming the crisis on the perceived leniency and errors of moderate elements who had advocated engagement with the West, particularly the United States.
Tehran may opt to resume intensive consultations with the International Atomic Energy Agency and negotiations with Washington, or it might escalate tensions by suspending implementation of the Additional Protocol’s inspection measures — or even withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether, among other potential courses of action.
This political and military reckoning is likely to extend beyond Iran and Israel, encompassing other nations and theatres once all parties have completed their evaluations of the crisis and its aftermath — including the weak and inconsistent responses from the international community. The urgency of preparing for surprises and mitigating risks has grown as diplomacy shrinks and militarisation intensifies.
As I observe these developments, I am reminded of Egypt’s farsighted initiatives since 1974 to establish the Middle East free of nuclear weapons — initially in cooperation with Iran and later in the early 1990s through independent efforts aimed at eliminating nuclear chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction from the region. These initiatives might have spared us today’s tensions and nuclear dangers.
Yet they faltered due to Israel’s refusal to join the NPT or engage with Egyptian proposals, compounded by the ambivalence and double standards of the treaty’s depository powers — the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain — who failed to address Israel’s nuclear programme in earnest.
The recent events have generated genuine security and humanitarian risks and economic repercussions for air and maritime navigation, affecting the entire region and beyond. The international community must act swiftly, urging the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to convene — as the body entrusted with maintaining international peace and security — and undertake urgent, coordinated diplomatic efforts aimed at:
- Securing an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Iran and reaffirming that the crisis must be resolved through diplomatic means.
- Ensuring the five powers oversee and monitor the ceasefire remotely, reporting any violations to the Security Council.
- Promptly resuming US-Iran nuclear negotiations to address concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme, ensure necessary transparency, and uphold Iran’s legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy.
- Reaffirming the Council’s previous positions on the imperative to avoid nuclear warfare and adhere to international legal commitments regarding the use of force and the protection of nuclear facilities.
- Calling on the Security Council to adopt a resolution initiating negotiations — prior to the next General Assembly session in the autumn — to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, without exception. This would serve as a confidence-building measure toward regional peace and the creation of a regional security architecture, alongside resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
* The writer is the former minister of Foreign Affairs.
* This article is published in collaboration with Independent Arabia.
Short link: