Israel Vs. Iran: Can Victory Be Achieved In War?

Jazmyne Rowe 18 Jun 2025

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is perpetually fraught with tension, and few rivalries capture this underlying volatility as acutely as that between Israel and Iran. For decades, these two regional powers have engaged in a shadow war, characterized by proxy conflicts, cyberattacks, and targeted assassinations. However, recent escalations have brought the prospect of direct, open warfare into sharper focus, leading many to ponder a critical question: can Israel defeat Iran in a war? The answer is far from straightforward, involving a complex interplay of military capabilities, strategic objectives, geographical realities, and the unpredictable nature of regional dynamics.

Understanding the potential outcomes of such a conflict requires a deep dive into the strengths and weaknesses of both nations, the likely nature of any engagement, and the broader implications for global stability. This article will explore the multifaceted dimensions of a hypothetical war between Israel and Iran, drawing upon insights into their military doctrines, economic foundations, and political aspirations to shed light on what a "victory" might truly entail for either side.

Table of Contents

The Escalating Tensions: A Prelude to Conflict
Geography and the Nature of Warfare
Israel's Military Might and Strategic Objectives
- Targeting Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
- The Quest for Regime Change
Iran's Resilience and Deterrence Strategies
- The Role of Proxies
- Iranian Know-How and Expertise
Economic Disparities and Their Impact
Scenarios and Unforeseen Consequences
Defining Victory in a Complex Conflict
The Regional and Global Fallout

The Escalating Tensions: A Prelude to Conflict

The animosity between Israel and Iran is deeply rooted in ideological differences and regional power struggles. While direct military confrontation has largely been avoided, the "war between wars" has been constant. Recent events, however, have brought the two nations perilously close to the brink. The war in Gaza raised tensions between Iran and Israel to new heights. This was tragically exemplified before the Israeli strike on Tehran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus on April 1 killed at least seven of its military commanders, prompting a direct missile and drone barrage from Iran against Israel. This unprecedented direct attack on Israel marked a significant shift in the conflict, moving it from the shadows into the open. Israel, in turn, struck military sites in Iran on Saturday, saying it was retaliating against Tehran's missile attack on Israel on Oct 1, the latest exchange in the escalating conflict between the Middle Eastern rivals. These exchanges underscore that open warfare between Israel and Iran is a real possibility again, a prospect that has put the entire Middle East region on high alert.

Geography and the Nature of Warfare

One of the most defining characteristics of any potential conflict between these two nations is the sheer geographical distance separating them. Because Iran and Israel are separated by more than 1,000 kilometres, with Iraq and Jordan in between, any conflict would likely not involve a ground invasion, but instead rely heavily on aerial and naval capabilities, alongside missile strikes and cyber warfare. This geographical barrier fundamentally shapes the nature of any military engagement. A ground invasion would be logistically prohibitive and politically untenable for either side, meaning the focus would be on long-range projection of power.

Israel has airborne and naval capabilities that it can use against Iran, but it must choose any target carefully. This implies a strategy of precision strikes against high-value targets rather than broad-scale conventional warfare. The conflict would largely be fought in the air, with missiles, drones, and advanced fighter jets playing a pivotal role. Naval assets could be used to target Iranian maritime interests or to project power in the Persian Gulf, but their direct utility against inland targets would be limited. The lack of a shared border also means that the brunt of Israeli attacks would fall on Iran’s proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq, which serve as forward operating bases and a means for Iran to project influence and launch attacks closer to Israeli territory.

Israel's Military Might and Strategic Objectives

Israel possesses one of the most technologically advanced and well-trained militaries in the world, backed by substantial U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing. Despite being much smaller in population, Israel's economy supports a robust defense industry and significant investment in cutting-edge military technology. This allows Israel to maintain a qualitative military edge over its adversaries. An attack by Israel, thought imminent by US and European officials at various points, would likely leverage its superior air force, long-range missile capabilities, and potentially submarine-launched cruise missiles.

Targeting Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

A primary strategic objective for Israel in any direct confrontation with Iran would be to neutralize Tehran's nuclear program. Israel, at a minimum, wants to do enough damage to Iran’s nuclear program that Tehran cannot reconstitute it for the foreseeable future or race to get a nuclear weapon. This objective is existential for Israel, which views a nuclear-armed Iran as an unacceptable threat. To stop or seriously slow Iran’s ability to make a weapon, for instance, Israel’s strikes would have to deny Iran the material needed to fuel nuclear weapons, such as enriched uranium, and destroy key infrastructure like centrifuges and research facilities. Experts can, in other words, figure out what factors will determine whether the attacks were a success in denying Iran nuclear weapons capability. Some of those factors are quantifiable, such as the amount of enriched uranium destroyed or the number of centrifuges rendered inoperable.

However, the challenge is immense. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed, deeply buried, and heavily defended. While Israel may have killed some nuclear scientists in the past, no bombs can destroy Iran's knowhow and expertise. This means that even if a strike successfully sets back the program, the knowledge base remains, making a complete and permanent eradication of the nuclear threat extremely difficult. Without capitulation or regime change in Iran, Israel’s war makes sense only if it can set back the nuclear programme by years.

The Quest for Regime Change

Beyond the nuclear program, some Israeli strategists and politicians view regime change in Iran as the ultimate goal. When asked by an interviewer if Israel is seeking regime change in Iran, Netanyahu said that regime change could be the result of Israel’s actions because “the Iran regime is very weak.” To be absolutely sure of success, Israel needs the Iranian regime to fall. This is a far more ambitious and complex objective, fraught with geopolitical risks and unpredictable outcomes. It must destroy both Iran's ability to wage war and its current political structure. However, history has shown that externally imposed regime change often leads to prolonged instability, civil war, or the rise of even more hostile entities. The feasibility and desirability of such an outcome are hotly debated even within Israel.

Iran's Resilience and Deterrence Strategies

Iran, despite facing decades of sanctions and international isolation, has developed a formidable military and a sophisticated deterrence strategy. Its armed forces are large, well-equipped with domestically produced weaponry, and experienced in asymmetric warfare. Iran's military doctrine emphasizes layered defenses, missile capabilities, and the strategic use of proxies to project power and deter aggression. Iran can’t beat Israel in a conventional, head-to-head war, but Israel probably doesn’t have the capacity to achieve its maximum objectives without a long and costly engagement.

The Role of Proxies

A cornerstone of Iran's regional strategy is its network of proxy forces, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza. These groups provide Iran with strategic depth and the ability to project power without direct military involvement. In a direct conflict, these proxies would likely open multiple fronts against Israel, diverting resources and creating a multi-pronged challenge. The brunt of Israeli attacks would fall on Iran’s proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq, but these attacks would also serve to draw Israel into a wider regional conflict, which is a key part of Iran's deterrence strategy.

Iranian Know-How and Expertise

Even if Israel were to launch devastating strikes against Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure, the fundamental "know-how and expertise" within Iran's scientific and military establishment would remain. Israel may have killed some nuclear scientists, but no bombs can destroy Iran's knowhow and expertise. This means that even if a program is set back, it can eventually be reconstituted. Furthermore, a severe attack might paradoxically strengthen Iran's resolve. What if Israel's attack convinces Iran's leadership that its only way of deterring further aggression is to rapidly acquire nuclear weapons? This could accelerate, rather than halt, Iran's nuclear ambitions, creating an even more dangerous scenario.

Economic Disparities and Their Impact

While military capabilities are paramount, the economic strength of each nation also plays a crucial role in sustaining a prolonged conflict. Despite being much smaller in population, Israel's economy is significantly more advanced and diversified than Iran's, which has been crippled by decades of international sanctions. Israel's GDP per capita is considerably higher, allowing for greater investment in military technology, research and development, and the ability to absorb the economic shocks of war. Iran, on the other hand, relies heavily on oil exports and faces severe financial constraints, which could limit its ability to sustain a long-term conflict or replace destroyed military assets. However, Iran's economy is also highly resilient to external pressure, having adapted to sanctions for years, and its leadership has shown a willingness to endure hardship for strategic objectives.

Scenarios and Unforeseen Consequences

Any military confrontation between Israel and Iran would be inherently unpredictable, with a range of possible outcomes. Scenarios include an Iranian defeat, an Israeli retreat—or an expanded regional conflict. An "Iranian defeat" might imply significant damage to its military capabilities and nuclear program, but it's unlikely to lead to total capitulation or immediate regime collapse. An "Israeli retreat" could occur if the costs of the conflict become too high, either in terms of casualties, economic impact, or international pressure. The most dangerous scenario, however, is an "expanded regional conflict."

Worries over war in the Middle East have largely shifted away from direct U.S. involvement but remain high for regional escalation. The involvement of Iran's proxies, potential retaliatory strikes on civilian population centers, and the risk of drawing in other regional or global powers (like the U.S. or Russia) could quickly spiral out of control. However, Channel 12, citing unnamed senior officials, said that Israel had sent a warning to Iran that if civilian population centers were targeted in Iran’s response, Israel would attack the Iranian civilian population centers. This tit-for-tat escalation could lead to devastating consequences for both nations and the wider region, potentially disrupting global oil supplies and triggering a humanitarian crisis.

Defining Victory in a Complex Conflict

The question "can Israel defeat Iran in a war?" is complex because the definition of "defeat" or "victory" is highly subjective in this context. A conventional military defeat, where one side's armed forces are completely dismantled and its territory occupied, is unlikely given the geographical realities and the nature of modern warfare. For Israel, victory might mean setting back Iran's nuclear program by decades and severely degrading its ability to support proxies. For Iran, avoiding a decisive defeat and demonstrating its capacity to retaliate might be considered a victory, maintaining its regional influence and deterring future aggression.

Ultimately, a "victory" that truly ensures long-term security for Israel might require a fundamental shift in Iran's strategic calculus or even its political system, which is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, objective to achieve through military means alone. "Iran can’t beat Israel, but Israel probably doesn’t have" the capacity to achieve its maximum objectives without a long and costly engagement. This suggests a stalemate or a pyrrhic victory for either side, where the costs far outweigh any perceived gains.

The Regional and Global Fallout

A full-scale war between Israel and Iran would have catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and beyond. The economic repercussions would be global, primarily through disruptions to oil markets and trade routes. The humanitarian cost would be immense, with potential refugee crises and widespread suffering. Politically, it could destabilize existing alliances, empower extremist groups, and fundamentally reshape the regional order. The international community would face immense pressure to intervene, either diplomatically or militarily, further complicating an already volatile situation. Here’s what you need to remember: the potential for a regional conflagration is high, and the implications would be far-reaching.

In conclusion, while Israel possesses a significant military advantage in terms of technology and training, the idea of a decisive "victory" against Iran in a conventional war is highly debatable. The geographical distance, Iran's deep-seated expertise, its resilient proxy network, and the sheer complexity of its nuclear program mean that any military action would likely be a prolonged and costly endeavor with uncertain outcomes. Israel's war cabinet has met several times to debate a course of action to complement a diplomatic push against Iran since Saturday’s unprecedented direct attacks on Israel, with the Israeli army on high alert. The goal for Israel would be to degrade Iran's capabilities and deter future aggression, but achieving a complete and permanent neutralization of the threat, especially regarding nuclear know-how or regime change, appears to be an elusive target. The most probable outcome of a direct conflict would be a devastating regional escalation, with no clear winner, but immense costs for all involved.

What are your thoughts on the potential outcomes of a direct conflict between Israel and Iran? Do you believe a decisive victory is possible for either side, or would it lead to an endless cycle of retaliation? Share your insights in the comments below, and don't forget to share this article to spark further discussion on this critical geopolitical issue.

Can Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Can Picture. Image: 16859741

glass – Picture Dictionary – envocabulary.com

Accelerate Your Potential