The final barrage of Iranian rockets early Tuesday morning, which killed four Israelis in Beersheba, left a bitter aftertaste at what seemed like the end of a 12-day war. But there should be no doubt: in the battle to stop the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel and the United States emerged as the clear victors.
At 7am the ceasefire announced by President Donald Trump came into effect. But just two hours later, when Iran fired another salvo of missiles, it sowed confusion. Was the war really over, or was another round on the horizon?
That uncertainty lingered, but one fact has already been cemented: Iran has suffered a decisive blow. Its uranium enrichment programme – the foundation of its nuclear weapons ambition – has been decimated.
Before the United States even joined the fight, Israeli airstrikes had already inflicted significant damage at Natanz, the country’s main enrichment site, and at the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan. When the US entered the operation early Sunday morning, the damage escalated to a whole new level: seven B-2 bombers dropped 14 GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, demolishing Natanz, Isfahan, and the highly fortified Fordow facility buried deep near Qom.
But it wasn’t just the buildings that were hit. Key Iranian nuclear scientists and personnel involved in the development of critical components for weaponisation were also targeted and eliminated by Israel. These actions collectively set Iran’s nuclear programme back not by months – but by years.
Still, one major question remains unresolved. Reports suggest that Iran removed approximately 400kg of enriched uranium from Fordow just days before the bombing. On Sunday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cryptically noted that Israel had “interesting intel” on the stockpile’s whereabouts. Wherever that uranium is, rest assured it is now the focus of intense Israeli and American intelligence operations.
While Israel’s strikes – according to estimates in Jerusalem – delayed the enrichment programme by six to 12 months, US involvement has extended that timeline significantly. Perhaps just as important is the unprecedented operational achievement of gaining control of Iranian airspace and dismantling the Islamic Republic’s air defence network. That dominance will need to be preserved should further action become necessary.
Iran’s ability to launch missiles might have persisted until the end, but not at the scale it had once imagined. Prior to the war, the regime believed it could replicate the barrage it conducted in April and October of last year – hundreds of missiles fired in coordinated waves.
But Israeli air operations degraded that capability quickly, taking out stockpiles and launcher systems.
Estimates suggest that only a third of Iran’s missile launchers remain intact. Criticism of the ceasefire, primarily from the Israeli right, was predictable, but the decision by Netanyahu and his war cabinet to accept it was the correct one.
After the three core enrichment sites were destroyed, there was a legitimate question: what would continued fighting achieve?
When Israel struck Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria’s in 2007, it stopped there. Iran was always going to be more complex, due to its scale, its deeper fortification, its multiple sites and the obvious expectation that there would be a retaliation. But after the American strikes on Sunday, the path to a de-escalation was clear. A policy of “quiet will be met with quiet” became viable.
In short, Israel achieved its military objectives. If Iran refrains from further attacks, Israel will, too. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean the larger challenge is over.
While Israel and the US can destroy physical infrastructure, they cannot erase ideology. The motivation and ambition to acquire nuclear weapons remains rooted within Iran’s leadership. To truly neutralise the threat, one of two outcomes must occur.
The first is a negotiated agreement. With Iran weakened, the US has an opportunity to pursue a far better deal than the 2015 JCPOA – one that permanently ends uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, while allowing a civilian nuclear energy programme under tight international oversight. That was always the distinction. The fact that the nuclear reactor in Bushehr was left untouched throughout the conflict underscores this point: Israel and the US never opposed peaceful nuclear energy for Iran – only the components tied to weaponisation.
The second scenario is regime change. Only a new leadership in Tehran that chooses reconciliation with the West over confrontation can permanently shelve the nuclear programme. Can this happen? Possibly. But it requires the Iranian people to rise up against a brutal and repressive regime.
In the past week, Israel sought to support this prospect by striking military and economic regime targets. The idea was to weaken the pillars of power that keep the ayatollahs in place. But Israel must show humility. It cannot easily orchestrate regime change in a country that is thousands of kilometres away, nearly ten times its size in population and vastly different in terrain, culture, and political dynamics. Ultimately, any change must come from within Iran.
That is why strategic clarity matters now more than ever. Israel must avoid being dragged into a prolonged conflict with ill-defined goals.
Wars without clear endpoints often squander early victories. What Israel accomplished over 12 days – militarily and diplomatically – is one of the most significant achievements in modern history.
The IDF demonstrated ingenuity, precision and coordination. Mossad delivered world-class intelligence. And, perhaps most remarkably, the level of synchronisation with the United States reached an unprecedented peak.
This success needs to be preserved. If Iran attacks again, Israel will respond. But if quiet prevails, this is the time to regroup, reassess, and prepare for the next front – be it at the negotiating table, on Tehran’s streets or at nuclear watchdog meetings in Vienna.
The war may have ended, but the campaign to ensure a non-nuclear Iran is far from over. And in that campaign, Israel and the US now hold the upper hand.
The writer is a co-author of the forthcoming book While Israel Slept about the October 7 Hamas attacks, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.
