اخبار فلسطين – وطن نيوز
فلسطين اليوم – اخبار فلسطين اليوم
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-03-31 22:27:00
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed on February 28, 2026 as a result of joint air strikes, which US President Donald Trump confirmed were coordinated with Israel. This event is considered an unprecedented historical shift in the nature of the conflict in the Middle East between Iran on the one hand and both the United States and Israel. The United States mostly chose the negotiated diplomatic path and the strategy of maximum pressure on Iran by imposing sanctions, to undermine the Iranian nuclear program, while Israel did not hide its desire to target that program and destroy it by force, and urged the United States to support it in that. Israel has behaved this way in the past, in Iraq when it destroyed its nuclear program in 1981, and in Syria when it destroyed its nuclear infrastructure in 2007. On the other hand, Iranian policy can be described as a mixture of pragmatism and security considerations in dealing with that threat. While it continued to build its nuclear program and develop its military capabilities and presence in the region, it issued a legal fatwa forbidding the acquisition of nuclear weapons, joined the Nuclear Weapon Convention, allowed international observers to visit its nuclear sites, and engaged in several rounds of negotiations with the United States, one of which culminated in the conclusion of the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) during the era of US President Barack. Obama in 2015, which led to Israeli rejection and a cooling of the relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at that time. Within the framework of these disparate positions, a state of shadow war arose between the two parties for more than two decades, in which assassinations, cyber attacks, and attacks on ships intersected, and the three countries were implicated. After the joint Israeli-American aggression that continues with a deliberate escalation against Iran, and the Iranian response to that with escalating and gradual targeting as well, which not only targeted Israel, but also extended to American military bases and sites in the countries of the region, the world is witnessing a war that is considered one of the most dangerous contemporary wars on the international system, because of its expansion and ramifications not within the limits of the number of countries, but also because of its effects that have transcended political borders to devastating economic and military effects. What are the calculations of profit and loss in this war for the United States, Israel, and Iran? The answer to the question of profit and loss in this war for its three parties cannot be reduced to immediate results, but rather requires a multi-level analysis of the course of the war and its repercussions on these parties, which range from the extent of achieving the goal of the war, the limits of political, military and economic losses, the impact of the war on the three internal fronts, and the strategic results at the end of the war regardless of its final consequences. At the strategic level, the nature of this war is revealed by comparing the goals that each party seeks to achieve, as these goals reflect not only the nature of the basic stakes of each party, But also its limits and the potential paths of conflict it reveals. US President Donald Trump considered that the attack aims to ensure that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon, and to contain its missile program. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth detailed that goal by seeking to destroy Iranian missile launchers, its defense industrial base, and its naval forces, and to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, the White House described the war’s goal as directing crushing and devastating strikes against Iran to completely eliminate the Iranian regime’s threat. Strategically, Israeli official statements show that the goal of the war is to remove what it describes as the Iranian existential threat, which the Israeli military establishment considered to be represented by the Iranian regime itself, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu separated that goal by eliminating the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile threat. That is, Israel is targeting ballistic missile systems, air defense systems, command sites, and weapons stores and production, and weakening Iran’s ability in general, which is considered to have the potential to lead to the overthrow of the regime. That is, Israel’s goal in the war is not only to destroy Iran’s nuclear project. Iranian official statements, which reflect Iran’s goals in this war, indicate that the Iranian military response comes within the framework of legitimate defense of sovereignty, and not submitting to external pressures to stop its peaceful nuclear program. Iran’s military response aims to maintain deterrence and the survival of the regime, but without reaching a comprehensive war, i.e. a calculated escalation, which does not lead to an open confrontation. Accordingly, a comparison between the goals of the three parties reveals that the United States is waging war with the aim of political containment, military weakening, and preventing nuclear transformation. While Israel seeks to go further, which is to destroy the structural sources of Iranian capacity and power, with the aim of imposing a new security and political reality in the region, linked to its vision for the future of that region, which explains its position on the Iranian regime itself. As for Iran, it views the war as a defensive war of existence and survival. Although Israel and the United States have succeeded in inflicting significant material, human and military losses on Iran, they have not yet succeeded in reaching a state of strategic resolution, which seems difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, Iran not only maintained its deterrence capabilities and continued steadfastness, but also worked to raise the cost of the war regionally and economically, which constitutes an increasing burden on the United States and Israel. This is the scene that the International Crisis Group described as a regional war that is expanding and creating enormous risks, which does not enable any party to claim that it can end this war on its terms. On the military level, the results of this war are not measured only by the size of the exchanged strikes, but by the ability of each party to absorb losses, maintain its operational capacity, and impose a continuing military cost on its opponent. In this war, Washington not only suffered human losses whose size is not yet known, but also operational losses at the aviation and deployment levels, in addition to the expanding threat to American bases in the Gulf states and other countries. Israel also paid a military price for this war that it had not paid in any of the wars it had fought before. The Iranian missiles, which the Israeli multi-level missile defense system was unable to block, succeeded in causing deaths and injuries and causing damage to a number of buildings, some of which are considered sensitive strategic and military sites. The first 100 hours of the operation cost Israel an estimated $3.7 billion in munitions, and talk of the need to replace defense stockpiles became part of the military debate. The United States and Israel struck thousands of targets inside Iran, including facilities, launch pads, a defense industrial base, and ships and submarines. Iran suffered heavy military losses, in the leadership and military structure, missile stores, nuclear and navigational sites. However, the goal of disabling Iranian missiles remains difficult to achieve. The United States and Israel achieved clear offensive superiority over Iran, and inflicted significant military losses on Iran, but this did not succeed in paralyzing its ability to respond and withstand. While Iran succeeded, despite its heavy losses, in turning the war into a costly defensive and offensive attrition test for its opponents, especially by putting pressure on American bases and the Israeli interceptor stockpile. On the political level, the United States faces increasing internal and external challenges as a result of this war. Internally, criticism of the war mounted as a “war of choice” that does not represent a direct security necessity for the United States, as a number of members of the Democratic Party accused the US administration of engaging in an unjustified conflict. In the same context, internal opposition has emerged from some circles of the Republican movement, especially those associated with the “MAGA” movement, which believes that this war primarily serves Israeli interests, and questions the feasibility of the United States incurring its human and financial costs. Opinion polls also reflect increasing levels of popular anxiety about engaging in a new war in the Middle East, which puts additional pressure on American decision-makers. Externally, the United States faced criticism from some of its allies, especially in light of the decisions to redeploy defense systems after withdrawing them from other regions to Israel, which raised concerns about the decline in the level of protection in sensitive areas, especially in the Gulf states. There have also been indications of the reservations of a number of Western allies, including European countries within NATO, about direct involvement in military operations. This does not only reflect questions about the extent of the widening gap in positions between traditional allies, and about the limits of the American ability to mobilize a broad coalition in this war, but rather those questions extend about the extent of the fragmentation of the influence of the United States as a single unilateral pole in the current international system. Israel also faces an internal and external political cost of the war on Iran, but not in an identical manner. At home, the war gave the government a measure of security legitimacy, as an Israeli Democracy Institute poll showed increased confidence in Netanyahu among the majority of Israeli Jews in managing the operation, even if the division remained clear between the right and the left and between Jews and Palestinians at home. However, this circumvention remains fragile, because the long duration of the war, its high defense cost, and the continuation of missile penetrations threaten to turn security support into a political drain, especially if the gap between government rhetoric and the actual results of the war widens. Externally, Israel faces a conservative international environment, manifested in increasing European and international calls for diplomacy and calm, and the rejection by Western partners, such as Australia, of its expansionist plans in Lebanon, which reflects that the war imposes a growing political and diplomatic cost on it. In Iran, the war strengthened the cohesion of the internal front, especially after the assassination of the country’s supreme leader, and the Iranians lined up behind their leadership to confront the existential threat. At the level of foreign policy, although some Western countries directed limited criticism of the US-Israeli attack, they called for reducing the escalation and stopping the war, and most of them refused to support and support the United States and Israel in this war. In this context, a degree of political rapprochement also emerged with prominent international powers, such as China and Russia, which adopted a critical discourse of the military escalation and called for diplomatic solutions, while other countries, such as Turkey, maintained a more balanced position that combined a call for calm and the preservation of its regional interests, which reflects that Iran did not face complete international isolation, but rather moved within the margins of complex international interactions. Although Iran expanded its attacks on neighboring Gulf countries, under the pretext of striking American military and intelligence sites, this was met with criticism from those countries, which considered this an attack on their sovereignty. In recent years, Iran has sought to establish friendly relations with these countries, but these recent developments may cause a setback. Within the framework of a broader vision that may be in Iran’s interest, that war made the Arab Gulf states wonder about the feasibility and price of their partnership with Washington, and about Israel’s real strategic threat in the region, which may be an entry point to drawing up a new Middle East, but not in accordance with Israel’s declared ambitions. Accordingly, the outcome of this war reveals that the United States faces an increasing internal and external political cost that restricts its ability to manage the war, while Israel achieves temporary internal gains offset by growing diplomatic pressure, while Iran has so far succeeded in strengthening its internal cohesion and achieving relative political gains on the international arena, despite the regional pressures it faces. It has not been isolated politically, but has repositioned itself within broader international balances. At the level of repercussions and risks, this war goes beyond the limits of direct conflict between its parties, because it affects a region. The most vital dimension in the field of global energy security, and opens the door to escalation scenarios whose effects may extend from the international economy to major security balances. Economically, there are already strong indications that the war has pushed the world to the brink of a new energy shock. The price of a barrel of oil exceeded $100, and global markets were affected by the disruption of its supplies from the region, amid fears of a recession resulting from inflation due to energy prices. Europe may face a rapid energy shortage if the war continues, because its effects are no longer limited to crude oil, but rather have begun to affect jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline. The risks do not stop at oil prices, but rather extend to vital infrastructure, which makes the Gulf a region highly sensitive to war. Gulf states have warned Washington that striking Iran’s electricity grid could prompt Tehran to retaliate against water desalination and energy facilities in the Gulf. Tehran issued warnings to evacuate energy facilities in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar after targeting Iranian gas facilities. There were reports of disturbances or potential threats to the production of liquefied natural gas in Qatar, a development that threatens a fifth of global supplies of it. Any further expansion of the war may turn the region into a complex paralysis that affects electricity, water, energy, and maritime transport at the same time. Some major economies in Asia and Europe have begun to treat the war as a direct threat to their economic security, after suffering a sharp rise in electricity and gas prices. The risk of sliding into a wider war remains real, but not inevitable. The continuation of the war raises the possibility of internationalizing the conflict, whether through broader diplomatic, military, and logistical involvement of the major powers, or through the intertwining of its fronts with other crises. It seems that the cost of the war may become a greater burden on the international system, and much higher than its cost on its direct parties. In sum, this war does not reveal a clear victor as much as it reveals a gradual erosion in the ability of all its parties to achieve a strategic resolution. While the United States and Israel succeeded in inflicting significant military losses on Iran, they were unable to paralyze its ability to respond or impose an end to the conflict on their terms. On the other hand, Iran was able to withstand and maintain a degree of deterrence, and even raise the cost of war on its opponents, without this meaning its ability to achieve a decisive victory over its opponents. In light of the escalating economic repercussions and the expansion of regional and international risks, this war seems closer to an open conflict that reshapes the balance of power without giving any party the ability to resolve it, which makes its final cost, politically, economically and security-wise, higher than any potential gain, and raises an open question about the shape of the regional and international order that this war will produce.
