Wars often reveal the strength of alliances. Their endings reveal something more important: who ultimately gets to define the peace. The emerging aftermath of the Iran war offers a reminder that military campaigns and political outcomes are not always aligned. States may achieve impressive battlefield results, only to discover that diplomacy has taken the story in an entirely different direction. The distinction matters because history judges wars less by what armies destroy than by what political settlements endure.

For months, the Iran conflict appeared to rest on a convergence of interests between Washington and Jerusalem. Both sought to weaken Iran’s military capabilities and constrain its regional influence. Yet the moment negotiations began, the priorities of the two partners started to diverge. For the United States, ending a costly conflict, stabilising energy markets and preventing a wider regional conflagration became pressing objectives. For Israel, the central concern remained the long-term strategic challenge posed by Iran and its network of allied groups across West Asia.

That divergence is hardly unprecedented. Great powers and their allies frequently discover that........

© The Statesman