An extremely alarming picture of Israel's strategic position is presented by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, acknowledging that military operations against Iran and its regional adversaries have not yielded the results sought by the Israeli leadership.
In an article bearing the characteristic title "Israel is in a state of emergency," the newspaper describes an ever-deepening strategic crisis that threatens not only the country's regional power, but also the very ability of the Israeli military to maintain its current operational effectiveness.
The core finding is particularly revealing: despite the massive military power it possesses and extensive American support, Israel has failed to eliminate the primary threats it cites to justify its military operations.
Iran remains standing, Hamas has not been eliminated in the Gaza Strip, and Hezbollah continues to possess military capabilities in Lebanon.
Even more significantly, Israeli deterrence has not been fully restored, leaving the risk of new surprise attacks intact.
This analysis carries particular weight because it originates from within Israeli public discourse rather than exclusively from assessments by Israel's adversaries.
The nightmare of losing American protection
The greatest threat to Israel, according to the argumentation, lies not only on the battlefield of military operations, but in Washington.
The defeat of the Republicans in the US midterm elections of November 3 and the significant shift in American public opinion toward Israel are creating conditions that until recently were considered almost unthinkable.
The possibility of sanctions being imposed, military aid being restricted, and even an embargo on the sale of advanced American weapons systems is no longer treated as a distant scenario.
Already, in a separate report, Ynet points out that the new composition of the US Congress threatens to upend traditional bipartisan support for Israel, while Donald Trump's decision to terminate annual military aid creates even greater uncertainty.
The issue does not merely concern a potential diplomatic downgrade.
It concerns the very operational survival of the Israeli military machine, which relies heavily on American technology, spare parts, ammunition, and the continuous renewal of its equipment.
The Israeli Air Force, which constitutes the main pillar of the country's military superiority, would face severe difficulties if access to American support systems were cut off.
This dependence exposes a fundamental strategic problem: Israel possesses powerful armed forces, yet its ability to wage prolonged military operations depends to a critical degree on the continuation of American backing.
Iran remains the major strategic adversary
Of particular significance is the admission that Israel lacks the strength to force the overthrow of the Iranian government.
Despite repeated strikes on Tehran's nuclear and military installations, Iran continues to maintain substantial deterrent capabilities.
This assessment is further reinforced by an analysis from the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), published on November 3.
According to the institute, the two military confrontations with Iran failed to eliminate its nuclear and missile programs, while the Iranian leadership survived the strikes and retained the capacity to rebuild its military infrastructure.
This is a reality that stands in contrast to repeated declarations of decisive military victories.
For Tehran, the survival of core state and military structures constitutes a major strategic advantage, proving that even the combined power of the United States and Israel does not guarantee the achievement of their political objectives.
Military superiority, after all, does not necessarily equate to strategic victory.
An adversary can suffer immense destruction and still prevent the imposition of the terms sought by the other side.
This is one of the most important lessons of the conflict with Iran.
Hamas and Hezbollah: The limits of Israeli military strategy
The crisis is not confined to the confrontation with Tehran.
According to the analysis, the Israeli newspaper underscores that the country has failed to achieve a complete military victory against either Hamas or Hezbollah.
This specific assessment is not an isolated stance.
In an earlier public statement, Israeli Education Minister Yoav Kisch had acknowledged that a decisive victory was not achieved in Gaza, against Hezbollah, or in Iran.
This development calls into question the strategy of continuous military operations as a means of resolving regional conflicts.
Despite the human and economic toll of the wars, the core confrontations remain unresolved.
Hamas has not vanished from Gaza, Hezbollah continues to constitute a security factor in Lebanon, while Iran retains the capacity to influence regional balances.
Rather than shaping a more stable security environment, Israel faces the danger of prolonged military mobilization across multiple fronts.
International isolation also threatens relations with the Arab world
Yet another alarming dimension concerns Israel's diplomatic relations with Arab states.
For decades, its close relationship with the United States served as a primary factor bolstering Israel's regional standing.
From the peace treaty with Egypt to the Abraham Accords, American political and military support acted as a major incentive for Arab governments to pursue rapprochement with Israel.
However, if ties with Washington weaken and international isolation intensifies, the diplomatic value of such rapprochement could diminish.
Arab governments will have fewer reasons to shoulder the political cost of closer cooperation with a country facing growing international scrutiny.
This picture is directly tied to military operations in the Palestinian territories and international criticism over the occupation, settlement expansion, and devastation in the Gaza Strip.
Within this context, the analysis advocates for an immediate shift in Israeli policy, featuring substantive initiatives for the Palestinians, the reconstruction of Gaza, and a reassessment of the occupation of territories in Syria and Lebanon.
The major contradiction of the Netanyahu government
The gravest problem for the Israeli leadership is that continuing military escalation risks worsening the very situation it purports to address.
The government of Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly presented military operations as indispensable for restoring deterrence and neutralizing regional threats.
However, the persistence of these threats, despite extensive bombings, exposes the limits of that specific strategy.
At the same time, Netanyahu's political alignment with Donald Trump and the Republican Party appears to have strained Israel's relationship with a significant segment of the American political system.
Ynet reports that growing opposition to Netanyahu's policies has now turned into an electoral advantage for certain American politicians, while traditional support for Israel is no longer taken for granted.
Even if the US-Israeli strategic partnership is not severed, this shift could carry long-term consequences.
The Israeli government therefore faces a dilemma: either continue the strategy of military confrontation, assuming the risk of deeper isolation, or seek political solutions that will require major changes to its choices thus far.
From military superiority to strategic uncertainty
The most important takeaway from the Israeli warnings is that military power alone cannot guarantee a nation's long-term security.
Israel remains one of the strongest military powers in the region.
Yet its operational capabilities have not translated into a stable political and strategic reality.
Tehran continues to be a major adversary, regional conflicts remain open, and American support faces unprecedented political pressures.
For Iran, these developments provide a powerful strategic argument: despite immense military pressure, the Israeli-American side failed to impose all of its objectives.
This does not mean that Iran emerged unscathed from the conflict or that Israel has lost its military strength.
It means, however, that the outcome of war cannot be measured solely by the number of bombings or the scale of destruction.
The real strategic question is whether Israel finds itself in a safer position today than it was prior to its military operations.
And it is precisely on this question that the harsh self-criticism emerging in the Israeli press focuses.
The prospect of losing unrestricted American support makes the problem even graver.
Because the greatest blow for Israel would not merely be the inability to impose its terms on Iran, but discovering that, after years of war, the country has also weakened its most vital strategic asset: Washington's unconditional protection.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών