Clausewitzian wisdom, “War is the continuation of policy by other means,” best describes Israel’s strategy in the ongoing war in the Middle East. Over the past year, Israel has been able to transform not only the modern battlefields but also the region’s geopolitical landscape. This transformation has occurred amid immense destruction and an unprecedented human cost, amounting to genocide. However, despite the widespread condemnation and internal political divisions, Israel has achieved a tactical victory which can primarily be attributed to the indecisiveness on the part of its primary opponent Iran. The ashes of Iranian influence now cloud the region’s bleak geopolitical horizon.

Looking back at the previous year, one can infer that Israel’s actions were not mere resentful retaliation to the October 7 attacks by Hamas. The decimation of Gaza and the violation of international laws was part of a calculated strategy to reshape regional politics in its favor. Over the years, Israel continuously crossed the redlines set by Iran, which, instead of giving decisive response, merely relied on rhetoric and hollow mantra of dreadful revenge. In April 2024, Iran served a practical response, however, it was so weak and ineffective that it exposed the limitations of Tehran’s Middle East strategy. The recent Iranian attack, also caused little damage and came too late to have any impact.

On the other hand, Hassan Nasrullah’s assassination was the latest in a series of losses inflicted by Israel on its adversaries. Over the past few months, top officials of Iran’s allied groups, including more than a dozen Hezbollah leaders, have been systematically eliminated. Similarly, nearly the entire leadership of Hamas has been killed, including its two chiefs, Ismael Haniyeh, who was assassinated on Iranian soil and Yahya Sinwar.

Israel has also targeted and killed several IRGC senior commanders, including Abbas Nilfroushan. At the same time, the effectiveness of Israel’s operations and the deep penetration of its intelligence network have fueled speculation about the circumstances surrounding the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash.

Israel’s series of successful assassinations raises a fundamental question: Can Iran still justify its position as a regional power if it cannot protect its allies? In the ruthless arena of geopolitics, a state’s power is measured not only by its military strength but also by its capacity to safeguard its partners and allies. In this context, reports of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being moved to a secure location, before his reappearance to lead a Friday prayer in Tehran were ironic symbols of Iran’s waning power. Thucydides’ dictum, “the powerful must do what they can and the weaker suffer what they should”, resonates painfully in this context.

As the US presidential election approaches, Israel has accelerated its military campaign. It has successfully attacked targets in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Hezbollah’s communication system has been dismantled, and a costly ground offensive to establish a buffer along the Lebanese border has commenced. With Hamas and Hezbollah paralyzed, and Iran lacking a formidable air force or missile defense system to defend itself against a likely Israeli attack targeting its leadership, industrial complexes, and petrochemical sites, the only option for Iran, in the event of an Israeli counterattack, would be further escalation. Considering the high cost of escalation for Iran in such a scenario, Israel’s position in the region appears stronger than ever.

Also read: The Effectiveness Of Israel’s Sabotage Operations

Beyond technological superiority, the lack of military and economic support, in contrast to the aid Israel receives from the West, Iran’s isolation also played an important role in its weak response. No Arab state has supported Iran, and the Houthis lack the strength to fight meaningfully, aside from disrupting maritime routes in the Red Sea. Without strong allies, direct ground access to Israel, or a formidable air force, Iran’s status as a regional heavyweight now looks hollow.

At the same time, Iran’s ideological role as the leader of resistance against Israel is under dark clouds. Although the recent strikes on Israel may send a strong signal to Iranian allies and sympathizers, the loss of influence on the ground will not be easily regained. If these strikes had occurred immediately after Haniyeh’s assassination and before Hezbollah’s setbacks, the outcome might have been significantly different.

Through a combination of superior military strategy, technological dominance, and Western backing, Israel has so far dictated the terms of the conflict. Iran and its regional partners, despite their rhetoric, have been relegated to the weaker side, suffering the consequences of inaction. Israel’s tactical victory has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. As the dust settles, Israel will likely consolidate its position, while Iran struggles to regain its fragmented influence. Meanwhile, resistance to Israel’s illegal and inhumane actions will continue at a lower-intensity by smaller regional groups.