On 7 April 2026, a two-week ceasefire between Iran, the USA and Israel was declared. The declaration came a mere hour before the deadline, posed by President Trump, to eradicate the Iranian civilization.

Leaders should set realistic goals before they send soldiers to fight. Leaders bear a fundamental responsibility to align political objectives with strategic feasibility before committing their societies to war. Classical strategic theory, most notably articulated by Carl von Clausewitz, insists that war must remain subordinate to rational political ends. When objectives are vague, maximalist, or detached from operational realities, military action risks becoming self-defeating. Unrealistic war aims not only undermine battlefield effectiveness; they corrode morale, weaken societal resilience, and erode public trust

For Netanyahu, Iran is the bogeyman. He believes Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and he is right. We should be attentive to our enemies, what they say and what they do. When leaders of a significant regional power declare that they wish to wipe Israel off the map and, at the same time, they support terror organisations that are committed to Israel’s destruction and develop ballistic missiles and nuclear power, these should be clear warning signs.

Iran is a powerful country, with a rich history. Its territory is vast, spanning 1.65 million square kilometres, making it the 17th largest country in the world, and it has a population of roughly 90 million people. Iran showed its resilience in its war with Iraq during 1980–1988. In that war, for the first two years, Iraq was winning. Saddam Hussein developed plans for a march into Tehran. But Iran withstood the Iraqi hostilities. The war evolved into a prolonged war of attrition lasting eight years, ultimately ending in 1988 with a United Nations–brokered ceasefire and no decisive victor. The experience entrenched a strategic doctrine centred on endurance, asymmetry, and long-term resistance, traits that continue to define Iranian military and political behaviour.

Because of Iran’s might, Netanyahu did not wish to attack Iran alone. He wanted the United States to do the job for Israel. He pleaded with several American presidents. They all refused. When one opens war, one knows when it starts. One does not know how and when it ends. The risks were too high. This was true also for Trump in his first presidency. But Trump in his second presidency is different. There is no third term for him in the White House. He is willing to take greater risks. More than anything else, Trump wants to leave a certain legacy. He wants to be remembered as the greatest American president of all time. Netanyahu’s dream came true. While the United States was unwilling to attack alone, Trump was willing to consider a joint operation.

In June 2025, the plan went well. It was a short, 12-day operation. Israel and the United States attacked Iran together. Netanyahu and Trump were able to declare victory. The pain that was inflicted on Israel was bearable. While the home front experienced retaliatory strikes, the Israeli public, primed by a discourse of existential stakes, regarded the resulting damage as a bearable cost for degrading Tehran’s capabilities. Although the Houthis in Yemen attempted to broaden the conflict’s geography through asymmetric responses, the escalation remained largely contained, failing to ignite the much-feared regional conflagration.

Netanyahu’s appetite grew. He travelled frequently to Washington to plead with Trump to launch a bigger attack on Iran. Trump was listening.

What did Netanyahu want to achieve?

The destruction of all Iranian nuclear facilities that continued to function, although they were said to be “completely destroyed” in 2025;

The destruction of the Iranian’s ballistic programme;

Regime change in Iran;

Victory in the 2026 Israeli elections. If the war goes as planned, Netanyahu’s popularity will grow. People will forget all the misery that Netanyahu’s government brought on Israel since 2022, focus on Israel’s success in devastating Iran and Netanyahu will be able to keep his seat.

Taken together, these aims represented a strategic overreach. They underestimated both Iran’s capacity for recovery and the structural constraints of military power. Subsequent developments exposed the mistaken and highly optimistic calculations. Despite significant strikes, Iran retained or was able to reconstitute key elements of its strategic capabilities. Missiles continue to rain on Israel. Hezbollah rockets fly from Lebanon. Israel and Lebanon are unable to dismantle the terror organisation of its weapons. The Iranians do not show signs of weakness. Yet again, they show the resilience in which they excel. Iran’s oil sector and technology have also shown remarkable resilience.

The last time people went to the streets in Iran demanding regime change during December 2025-January 2026, it did not go well for them. According to reports, some 30,000 were murdered by the regime. The Iranians who do not like their totalitarian government know what will happen to them if they dare to protest now. At the time of writing, there is no sign that they wish to challenge their regime now.

The sole achievement Netanyahu can point to is the elimination of prominent Iranian leaders, even at the highest level. But this is a straw victory. History shows that cemeteries are full of supposedly indispensable leaders, and their successors are often no improvement, and sometimes far worse.

The Israeli population that supported the war when it started has been having second thoughts. Life in Israel during the war was extremely difficult. Israel was a nation in fear. Fear of leaving the house. Fear of going to work. Fear of losing their home. Fear of evacuation. Fear that luck would run out and the missile would land directly on them. Fortuna, the goddess of luck, can shift in a matter of seconds. Since the war started, sirens were heard all over Israel 93,145 times. More than 1,400 missiles were launched from Iran, and 4,300 rockets were launched from Lebanon, making the north of Israel aching beyond measure. 40 Israelis lost their lives; 7,035 were injured, and 6,305 were evacuated from their home. The war has left another trauma on the already traumatised nation that since the last election in 2022 has known much agony, including the 2023-2025 war with Hamas that showed just how vulnerable Israel is.

The definitive date for the upcoming national elections remains unfixed, as Prime Minister Netanyahu strategically calculates the optimal political window to maximize his electoral advantage. Yet, it is imperative that Israelis go to the polls by the end of 2026, adhering to the legally mandated democratic cycle. This contest will undoubtedly stand as the most consequential election in Israel’s history. It represents a critical juncture where the electorate will have the opportunity to exercise its sovereign voice and chart a radically different trajectory for the nation.

The path forward must be one defined by institutional responsibility, robust democratic guardrails, and a commitment to transparent governance free from the corrosive effects of corruption. To heal, the country requires a leadership that actively abhors violence and instead vigorously pursues the avenues of diplomacy, regional normalization, and sustainable peace. Above all, the citizens of Israel yearn for tranquility. It is time for Israel to evolve into a normal country, a state where individuals can pursue their lives unburdened by fear, domestic intimidation, and the paralyzing, constant anxiety regarding their collective future.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)