Qamar Bashir
At the beginning of the Iran war, many observers believed that the greatest beneficiary would ultimately be Israel. The war was projected as the final chapter in a long strategic campaign to neutralize Iran, dismantle its regional influence, and reshape the Middle East under a new geopolitical order favorable to Tel Aviv and Washington. Israeli intelligence circles, supported by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and their allies in Washington, appeared convinced that the Iranian state was fragile, internally collapsing, economically exhausted, and politically isolated. According to that narrative, all that Iran needed was one decisive kinetic push from the United States and Israel for the entire regime to collapse like a house of cards.
The assumption was that once Tehran fell, a pro-Western puppet regime would emerge, Iranian resources would come under indirect American-Israeli influence, and the strategic dream of uncontested Israeli dominance in the Middle East would finally become reality. This was not merely about defeating Iran militarily; it was about transforming the entire political map of the region.
But history often humiliates those who confuse ambition with reality. Instead of collapsing, Iran resisted. Instead of surrendering, it retaliated. Instead of fragmenting, it unified. And in doing so, it may have fundamentally damaged Israel’s long-term strategic position more severely than any battlefield loss.
The first and perhaps most devastating consequence for Israel has been the erosion of its unquestioned political influence inside the United States. For decades, support for Israel in Washington operated almost as an untouchable doctrine. Congressional appropriations for Israel passed without scrutiny. Military aid flowed uninterrupted. Politicians from both parties competed to prove their loyalty to Israeli security interests. Criticizing Israel was politically dangerous, and opposing Israeli military actions was often portrayed as unpatriotic.
But the Iran war changed the atmosphere dramatically. For the first time in years, large segments of the American public, independent journalists, political commentators, and even lawmakers began openly questioning whether the United States had entered the conflict to defend America or merely to protect Israeli strategic ambitions.
Earlier congressional efforts to restrict presidential authority for war against Iran had failed overwhelmingly. Yet when a similar bipartisan initiative reappeared later, it was defeated by only a single vote. That shift was historically significant. It demonstrated that many lawmakers who once unquestioningly aligned with Israeli demands were now beginning to recognize the political cost of appearing subordinate to foreign strategic interests.
The second major failure for Israel was strategic miscalculation. Iran absorbed the initial attacks, maintained command cohesion, preserved national unity, and launched retaliatory strikes that shocked both Israel and the United States.
Instead of showcasing Israeli supremacy, the war exposed vulnerabilities. Iranian missile and drone operations damaged sensitive Israeli infrastructure and demonstrated that Israel could no longer operate with total impunity. The myth of invulnerability was shattered. When the United States entered directly to support Israel, American bases themselves became targets, expanding the conflict beyond Israel’s borders and increasing the risks for Washington.
The broader geopolitical consequences may prove even more damaging for Israel. One of the hidden strategic goals behind pressure on Iran was to accelerate normalization between Israel and major Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Israeli strategists believed that weakening Iran would frighten Gulf monarchies into deeper dependence on Israeli military and intelligence cooperation. Once Saudi Arabia fully normalized relations with Israel, Tel Aviv hoped to cement its hegemony across the Middle East.
Yet the opposite occurred. Most Middle Eastern states avoided direct participation in the war. Rather than joining a regional offensive against Iran, Gulf countries emphasized diplomacy, negotiation, coexistence, and regional stability. Their leaders repeatedly signaled that they understood how to manage relations with Iran through political engagement, religious ties, and pragmatic diplomacy rather than total confrontation.
More importantly, Iran’s military and strategic resilience has now altered the balance of power in the region. Instead of being weakened into submission, Iran has emerged as what many analysts increasingly describe as the new strategic sheriff of the Middle East. Its demonstrated offensive and defensive capabilities have created a new deterrence equation. For decades, Israel relied on the doctrine of absolute military superiority and total impunity. That doctrine has now been challenged openly and visibly.
With Iran’s strategic credibility strengthened, its allied movements and ideological partners across the region are also expected to gain renewed confidence and momentum. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iran-aligned groups are likely to receive a psychological and political boost from Tehran’s survival and resistance. The perception that Iran successfully stood against both Israel and the United States will energize many of its supporters throughout the region. At the same time, the broader influence of Shiite political and religious movements may expand significantly across the Middle East. This could gradually reshape the religious and political balance of power in the region.
Ironically, the very war designed to establish “Greater Israel” may now accelerate the opposite outcome. Instead of expanding Israeli influence from the Euphrates to the Nile, the conflict has exposed the limits of Israeli and American power. The dream of uncontested territorial and military expansion has collided with the reality of regional resistance and shifting geopolitical dynamics. As a consequence, the future may increasingly move not toward a greater Israel, but toward an Israel forced back within more internationally recognized and defensible boundaries.
Equally significant is the perception that the United States itself no longer possesses unlimited willingness or capacity to impose Israeli strategic objectives across the region. The costs of war, domestic political backlash, economic strain, and military overstretch have all weakened Washington’s appetite for open-ended confrontation. That realization alone changes the calculations of every regional power.
Perhaps most importantly, the war transformed global narratives surrounding Israel itself. Around the world, criticism of Israeli policies intensified dramatically. Independent media, social platforms, academics, and even former Western officials increasingly challenged long-standing assumptions about Israeli exceptionalism and impunity. Questions once considered taboo entered mainstream political discourse: Was Israel manipulating American foreign policy? Were American soldiers and taxpayers paying the price for another nation’s ambitions? Had exaggerated intelligence assessments pushed Washington into unnecessary confrontation?
These questions would have been politically unthinkable only a few years ago. Today, they dominate public debate across many societies.
In the end, the greatest lesson of the Iran war may be that military superiority alone cannot guarantee geopolitical victory. Nations endure through legitimacy, resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to command genuine trust among allies and populations. Israel entered the conflict hoping to reshape the Middle East in its favor. Instead, it may have triggered a historic reassessment of its role in the region and its relationship with the United States itself.
The war that was meant to establish permanent Israeli dominance instead exposed strategic overreach, weakened political consensus in Washington, strengthened Iran’s regional standing, and revived resistance movements across the Middle East. Far from inaugurating a new age of “Greater Israel,” the conflict may ultimately be remembered as the moment when the limits of Israeli power were finally exposed before the entire world.
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC.He is living in Macomb, Michigan
