How Israel Failed to Achieve Its Objectives in Iran By Ori Goldberg
After 11 days of relentless aerial bombardment, Israel’s campaign against Iran has come to an inconclusive end. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in announcing the ceasefire, declared that Israel had achieved its objectives. However, this assertion appears questionable upon closer scrutiny.
At the onset of the conflict, Netanyahu laid out two clear goals: the “decapitation of Iran’s nuclear program” and “regime change.” Neither materialized.
The Nuclear Program: Still Intact
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains largely functional. Reports suggest that the most sensitive materials, including fissionable stockpiles, were relocated from the Fordow facility—targeted by U.S. bunker-busting bombs—before the strikes. As such, the critical core of the nuclear program likely survived.
While Israel did persuade the United States to conduct limited strikes on Iranian nuclear sites using Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), Washington offered minimal further support. The actual extent of damage remains unknown, as Iran is unlikely to allow external verification. Thus, the claim of “decapitating” the nuclear program is unsubstantiated.
Regime Change Backfired
The second goal—overthrowing the Iranian regime—resulted in the opposite effect. Israel’s strategy relied on targeting senior leaders within Iran’s security apparatus, including top commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in hopes of inciting public unrest and destabilizing the regime.
This approach, however, misfired. While the IRGC is widely disliked within Iran, the assassinations were viewed not as liberation but as foreign aggression. Even regime critics and reformists rallied behind the government, perceiving the attacks as targeting the entire nation, not just its rulers.
Israel’s strike on Evin Prison—symbolic of the Islamic Republic’s oppression—was framed as solidarity with Iranian dissidents. In reality, it worsened their plight, as prisoners were moved to undisclosed locations, further endangering their lives.
Misguided Symbolic Targets
Other symbolic targets proved equally ineffective. The bombing of Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB, intended to disrupt propaganda, instead gave Iran moral leverage to threaten Israeli media in retaliation.
Similarly, the destruction of what Israel termed the “Iranian doomsday clock”—used by Tehran as a propaganda tool against Israel—achieved little more than ridicule. These attacks lacked strategic value and exposed Israel’s desperation to claim symbolic wins.
Diplomatic Isolation and Legal Fallout
Read Also:
On the international stage, Israel also struggled. Although former U.S. President Donald Trump authorized limited strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, he stopped short of full military support. The bombers swiftly returned to the U.S., and Trump continued to express interest in a future deal involving Iran and Israel.
While leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz publicly supported Israel’s right to self-defense, no major global powers endorsed Israel’s maximalist demands—such as a total Iranian ban on uranium enrichment. Instead, most reaffirmed the longstanding “no nuclear weapons” stance, which Iran has already signaled willingness to honor.
Meanwhile, Israel’s offensive incurred significant diplomatic costs. Trump’s involvement violated key principles of international law, likely sparking long-term geopolitical consequences.
A Pyrrhic Military Campaign
Despite initial Israeli air superiority, Iran’s missile retaliation was devastating. Iranian projectiles repeatedly breached Israel’s famed air defense systems, striking deep into the Israeli heartland. Cities were paralyzed, casualties were high, and infrastructure damage was extensive. Israel’s interceptor missile stockpiles dwindled with no immediate resupply in sight. Its economy teetered.
Iran, although battered and bombed with hundreds of casualties, remained standing. It retained the ability to launch effective responses and succeeded in portraying itself globally as a victim of aggression.
Notably, Iran’s calculated retaliation against the U.S. base in Qatar was telegraphed in advance, serving as a de-escalatory move. Moreover, Trump later warned Netanyahu not to pursue further attacks after the ceasefire—reportedly at Iran’s insistence.
Strategic Outcome: Iran Unbroken
In the final tally, Israel’s military operation failed to meet its goals. Iran’s regime survived, its nuclear capacity endured, and its international standing—far from diminished—was arguably enhanced. Tehran emerged bruised but defiant, maintaining its position in regional geopolitics.
Israel, by contrast, absorbed heavy losses, both militarily and diplomatically. The war left its economy reeling, its defenses compromised, and its objectives unfulfilled.
Conclusion
What Israel attempted was bold. What it achieved, however, was limited—if not counterproductive. Iran weathered the storm and remains a key actor in Middle Eastern affairs. Israel, despite its military might, miscalculated the cost and consequences of a war it could not win on its terms.
Ori Goldberg holds a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies with a specialization in Iranian affairs. He is a former university professor and national security consultant, now working as an independent analyst.
