There is good news and there is bad news.

The good news is that the United States and Israel, led by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have taken decisive military action against Iran. For decades, Iran’s regime has financed terror proxies across the Middle East, threatened Israel’s destruction, and advanced toward nuclear capability. Confronting that threat was never going to be easy.

Neither Washington nor Jerusalem has clearly articulated a coherent strategic plan for what comes next.

Military force can destroy targets. It cannot, by itself, produce lasting security. That requires strategy — clear political goals, measurable objectives, and a vision for what the region should look like once the fighting stops.

So far, that vision is still unclear.

History offers ample warning. The United States entered Iraq in 2003 with overwhelming military superiority but an unclear political end state. Israel has faced similar dilemmas in Lebanon and Gaza: tactical victories that did not translate into durable strategic outcomes. Without defined goals, even successful military operations risk becoming the opening act of a prolonged conflict.

Another troubling sign is the absence of a strong international coalition.

Many of America’s traditional allies were not included in meaningful strategic consultations before the strikes began. Instead, they were largely presented with a fait accompli. Predictably, several governments initially declined to take part. Only after Iran began retaliating against regional and allied assets did some begin offering limited support.

Coalitions matter. They confer legitimacy, expand intelligence sharing, and distribute political and military burdens. When allies are excluded from decision-making, their participation becomes hesitant and conditional. For a confrontation with a regional power such as Iran, that is a serious weakness.

Equally troubling has been the messaging from Washington.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently suggested that the United States launched strikes partly because it believed Israel was about to attack Iran and feared Iran would retaliate against American forces. The implication is problematic: it suggests Israel’s anticipated actions triggered the chain of events that brought the United States directly into the conflict.

That narrative is already being used by critics who argue Washington has been pulled into another Middle Eastern war on Israel’s behalf.

Rubio later clarified that President Trump had already decided to strike Iran. But the episode highlights a deeper issue. In a conflict with global implications, clarity and consistency in public messaging are strategic necessities.

Rubio’s remarks also came less than a week after President Trump said that the United States would support Israel if it attacked Iran. The sequence leaves observers uncertain about the administration’s broader objectives.

·      Are the United States and Israel seeking regime change in Tehran?

·      Are they trying to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?

·      Are they trying to degrade Iranian capabilities and restore deterrence?

·      All of the above?

·      None of the above?

Each goal would require a different strategy, timeline, and level of international support. Yet the answers are still unclear.

To be fair, President Trump has shown a willingness to act boldly in foreign policy. His administration has taken assertive positions toward Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba and other geopolitical challenges.

But boldness is not the same as strategy.

Months into these policies, tangible results remain uncertain. Venezuela’s crisis continues. Gaza is still a rubble and unstable. Now Iran joins a growing list of arenas where decisive action appears to have preceded clearly defined goals.

Military power can open doors. Without strategy, those doors may lead into rooms with no exit.

Wars require a war cabinet. Peace needs something equally important — what might be called a “board of peace,” a framework for defining what victory actually means.

Each outcome demands a different strategy. Without clarity, even the most impressive military campaign risks drifting strategically.

Israel and the United States have demonstrated overwhelming military capability. That was never in doubt.

The real question is whether they possess an equally clear political vision for what comes after the bombing stops.

Circumstances leading up to this day are no longer as relevant as they were prior to the commencement of military attacks. History will judge this war not by the number of targets destroyed, but by whether it produces a safer and more stable Middle East.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)