The strike completely destroyed the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, leaving Fordow intact, an underground uranium enrichment center inaccessible to Israeli F-35s, revealing an operational limitation that could only be overcome through U.S. intervention using B-2 bombers. The blow was not only physical but also decapitating, as it eliminated the top commanders of the Revolutionary Guard and key scientists from the nuclear program, thanks to Mossad networks activated within Iranian territory itself.
Iran's response, delayed and disorganized, exposed a military structure incapable of reacting in real time. During the first hours, Iran neither activated its defenses nor carried out counterattacks, a paralysis attributed to the sudden loss of its strategic leadership. Later, it launched an offensive that included 100 drones and a barrage of ballistic missiles, only a fraction of which struck Tel Aviv and Rishon LeZion, causing material damage and few casualties. Though symbolically relevant, this response lacked military effectiveness.
The air war between Israel and Iran represents the first direct conflict between the two states since 1973 and has redefined the operational theater in the Middle East. Israel managed to nullify Iran’s air capabilities and destroy its anti-aircraft defenses thanks to prior intelligence and internal sabotage. This allowed the Israeli Air Force to operate with tactical freedom—at least temporarily—within enemy territory.
However, the economic toll has been immense. The State of Israel faces debt exceeding $60 billion and a partial paralysis of its internal economy, worsened by the constant threat of missile attacks and the disruption of key productive activities. Iran, on the other hand, was exposed as an overinflated regional power, dependent on warmongering rhetoric it cannot sustain on the battlefield.
Its proxy network—including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—has been fragmented or neutralized. Lebanon has been completely disabled as a launch platform, Syria is under new leaderships seeking agreements with Israel, and Iraq has ceased militia operations. Yemen, although still hostile, now operates with fear and lacks the boldness it showed in previous months.
On the international stage, the Sunni Arab countries—formerly Israel’s adversaries—have remained silent or have even expressed tacit support. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan have neither mobilized troops nor issued strong condemnations of Israel, fully aware that an Israeli victory neutralizes a Shiite regime that has consistently undermined regional stability and their own economic interests, as occurred with the 2017 Iranian attack on Aramco’s oil pipelines.
Russia, while a partial ally of Iran, currently lacks the economic and military capacity to intervene decisively. Its war in Ukraine has drained its resources and international influence. Although President Putin maintains communication with actors on both sides, he lacks the logistical and political bandwidth to exert meaningful influence in this conflict. China watches cautiously, focused on its energy interests, yet avoids taking a direct stance, wary of being drawn into a confrontation that could jeopardize its trade or global standing.
From an eco-political perspective, the partial destruction of Iran’s nuclear program offers temporary relief to global oil markets, though volatility remains a risk should Iran attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz or target regional energy infrastructure. Such actions could spike crude prices and provoke a global energy crisis, yet Iran’s current weakness makes it unlikely to carry out such a maneuver without triggering its own strategic collapse.
The figure of Netanyahu has emerged strengthened domestically. Although he was the acting prime minister during the October 7th attack, he is now also the one who led the most audacious national defense operation in half a century. His political maneuvering has been precise: he avoided the collapse of his coalition, neutralized motions of no confidence, and repositioned himself as an indispensable leader ahead of the 2026 elections. Military success now serves as a shield against judicial proceedings and internal criticism.
Israel has redefined the concept of deterrence. The international community, including its historical detractors, must now recognize Israel’s ability to operate surgically, integrate human intelligence with technological precision, and respond with moral restraint in the face of existential threats. The warning to Iran has been clear: if Israeli civilians are attacked, critical infrastructure in Iran will be targeted in response. That red line redefines the rules of engagement.
The war is not over. Fordow has not yet been destroyed, nor has Iran’s missile capability been fully eliminated. The United States may soon enter the conflict more directly if its own interests are threatened, such as nuclear attack risks or jihadist incitement within its borders. This would escalate the conflict to a multilateral level.
Global stability now depends on Iran’s next moves and on the degree of diplomatic and military pressure that world powers are willing to exert on Tehran to stop its nuclear ambitions.
Israel must sustain its superiority with a dual strategy: maintain military deterrence and consolidate an international narrative that dismantles the victimization discourse promoted by Tehran. This will require sustained diplomatic efforts, intelligent management of regional alliances, and containment of global public opinion, increasingly vulnerable to psychological and media manipulation operations.
The conflict has revealed the new forms of modern warfare. Cyberattacks, infiltration of agents within enemy territory, narrative warfare, internal sabotage, neutralization of strategic infrastructure, the use of artificial intelligence for ballistic tracking and surveillance, have all been part of the silent arsenal in this confrontation. Israel has demonstrated that it is prepared for this invisible war, while Iran has been left as an ossified, reactive state, more rhetorical than operational.
In this scenario, traditional alliances are no longer the same. The new logic of global blocs now moves around energy interests, deterrence capacities, technological leadership, and religious dynamics, without the automatic alignments typical of the 20th century. Every country is reassessing its support based on economic costs, internal pressures, and opportunities for geostrategic repositioning. Israel has capitalized on this new dynamic with cold precision and effectiveness.
Despite its overwhelming strength, Israel faces a strategic dilemma: if it fails to completely annihilate Iran’s nuclear program, the war may amount to only a partial victory — dangerous, costly, and potentially short-lived. If Iran manages to rebuild Fordow or secure clandestine assistance from third-party actors, the conflict could become chronic, draining Israeli resources and forcing the permanent militarization of the state apparatus.
In Latin America, the consequences of this war are also being felt. Governments allied with Iran, such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, have issued statements of support, while Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Argentina have adopted an ambiguous stance, invoking international law without directly condemning Israel. In response, Israel is considering reactivating diplomatic networks and economic alliances to isolate regimes that support Tehran. At the same time, Shiite groups present in the region could be activated to carry out destabilization operations or targeted attacks against Israeli or Jewish interests.
Europe finds itself divided. While Germany, France, and the United Kingdom condemned the escalation but reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself, countries such as Spain, Ireland, and Belgium are pushing for an immediate ceasefire and a multilateral diplomatic solution. This European divide exposes a structural weakness in the EU’s foreign policy that may be exploited by regional actors like Turkey or Russia to undermine Atlantic cohesion.
That diplomatic fracture also reveals a crisis of values on the European continent, where the principle of sovereign defense clashes with constant pressure for multilateral solutions that often do not guarantee real security. While some prioritize containing the conflict for fear of global escalation, others understand that passivity in the face of a nuclear threat only paves the way for proliferation. This divergence, combined with Europe’s energy vulnerability vis-à-vis third-party suppliers, could provoke a reshuffling of leadership within the Union itself.
The religious dimension of the conflict cannot be ignored either. Israel has deliberately avoided attacking sacred sites or areas of high Shiite sensitivity, knowing that a religious escalation could unite actors who are currently divided for geopolitical or pragmatic reasons. However, the moral blow suffered by the Iranian theocracy — being outmatched both technically and militarily — could transform into a martyrdom narrative, mobilizing radicals and loyalists from Lebanon to South America.
Jewish communities in the diaspora are raising their alert levels. Community centers, schools, religious institutions, and Israeli businesses are being monitored for potential reprisals by cells linked to Iran or radicalized groups present in Europe, Latin America, or Central Asia. Intelligence services are working in coordination with allied agencies to prevent targeted attacks or sabotage, while diplomatic protection is being reinforced at embassies, consulates, and Israeli missions abroad.
The conflict has gone beyond a regional clash and now serves as a core point of global tension where technology, faith, ideology, sovereignty, and economics intersect. The final outcome of this war will not depend solely on Israel’s military superiority but on its ability to sustain that superiority in a context of prolonged attrition, growing diplomatic pressure, and constant risk of asymmetric reactivation.
That diplomatic fracture also reveals a crisis of values on the European continent, where the principle of sovereign defense clashes with constant pressure for multilateral solutions that often do not guarantee real security. While some prioritize containing the conflict for fear of global escalation, others understand that passivity in the face of a nuclear threat only paves the way for proliferation. This divergence, combined with Europe’s energy vulnerability vis-à-vis third-party suppliers, could provoke a reshuffling of leadership within the Union itself.
Post-war scenarios are already beginning to take shape, anticipating a structural reordering of the balance of power in the Middle East. If the Israeli offensive succeeds in fully neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program and dismantling its regional influence networks, a new security paradigm may emerge, where pragmatic coalitions — such as the Abraham Accords — could become the foundation of lasting stability. This new order would reduce ideological polarization and bring economic interests and shared security to the forefront of regional dialogue.
In that context, Israel will have the opportunity not only to reaffirm its military leadership but also to become a hub of technological, energy, and intelligence cooperation, linking moderate Sunni countries, Western powers, and emerging actors from Asia and Africa. This will depend on its capacity to transition from a state of war to active, credible, and dissuasive diplomacy that prevents the resurgence of threats under new forms or alternative leaderships.
However, if Iran survives this war politically and manages to preserve its propaganda apparatus and part of its offensive capacity, it could initiate a phase of extended irregular warfare, where revenge would be exercised through low-intensity operations, terrorist attacks, or sabotage of critical infrastructure in third countries. The use of dispersed militias, cyberattacks, and ideological agitation through networks and universities is already part of Iran’s contingency repertoire.
Therefore, Israel will not only have to secure its borders but also fortify its influence in symbolic, academic, and media spaces where Iran will attempt to rebuild its narrative. The war of ideas will intensify. European universities, global social media platforms, and international forums will become trenches where the legitimacy of the actors in conflict will be disputed. On this front, Israeli diplomacy will need to deploy a long-term strategy that combines historical truth, education, emotional communication, and narrative strength.
Israel’s defense doctrine will also undergo transformation. This war has made clear that the enemy is no longer defined solely by its standing armies but by its ability to infiltrate, adapt, victimize itself, and persist through unconventional actors. The Israeli security model must evolve toward a multilayered defense structure that merges traditional military superiority with anticipatory intelligence, cyber deterrence, and multinational security alliances.
On the other hand, the international system will have to choose whether it rewards firmness or ambiguity. If Israel manages to survive the diplomatic storm and consolidate a strategic victory, it will set a precedent for other nations threatened by authoritarian or theocratic regimes. The outcome of this war will become a landmark case for future conflicts of the 21st century, where moral discourse alone will no longer suffice — real capacity for defense, resistance, and reconstruction will be required.
War leaves both material and symbolic scars that do not disappear with a ceasefire. The psychological consequences within Israeli society are already surfacing, with a population subjected to prolonged states of alert, entire cities operating under emergency drills, internal displacements, and a generation of children and youth growing up with war as the backdrop of everyday life. This phenomenon will compel the State to implement a comprehensive policy of national resilience — not only military, but also educational, emotional, and cultural.
In Iran, the blow to the regime's strategic pride has weakened the perception of invulnerability surrounding the ayatollahs’ apparatus. Internal protests once contained through repression may escalate as it becomes evident that the regime could not protect key installations nor prevent foreign penetration into its structures. The discourse of resistance may lose its mobilizing power if it comes to signify defeat, ruin, and isolation. This opens a fissure that may be exploited by internal or external opposition actors seeking systemic change.
In the global economic sphere, commodity markets are entering a phase of intense speculation. Insurers are beginning to raise rates on commercial routes through the Gulf, while energy conglomerates are seeking to diversify their extraction and transport points. This accelerates the race for new agreements with African, Latin American, and Asian suppliers, reconfiguring global supply chains with collateral effects on the trade balance of numerous countries.
The international intelligence system is entering a new era. What occurred in Iran shows that satellites, drones, or surveillance software are not enough. Human infiltration, perception warfare, and the capacity to manipulate digital environments in real-time are now essential components of any major power’s security doctrine. Israel has demonstrated it can anticipate not only through technology, but also through human networks that penetrate hostile state structures from within.
Emerging powers are closely observing the outcome. India is strengthening strategic alliances discreetly, aware that a polarized world will require firmer alignments. Brazil and South Africa are redefining their diplomatic lines in view of a potential reorganization of blocs, where ambiguous postures may soon carry consequences. Turkey is weighing whether it should reaffirm its role within NATO or operate as an autonomous actor negotiating between fronts.
This conflict will not be remembered only for its bombs, but for the redesign it will provoke in the architecture of international power. Future wars will no longer be won solely by whoever fires first, but by those who build the strongest legitimacy, manage strategic time effectively, and shield themselves from the moral, economic, and social exhaustion imposed by fourth and fifth generation warfare.
The sequence of events has reshaped the mental map of global strategists. Classical theories of nuclear deterrence and regional balance no longer apply with the rigidity of the 20th century. Israel’s preventive action has introduced a new tactical category: surgical intervention with implicit geopolitical consent, without the need for formal coalitions or multilateral authorizations. This model redefines the margins of what is acceptable and anticipates a shift in international thresholds of tolerance toward existential threats.
By acting without seeking legitimacy from global forums dominated by bureaucratic dynamics and paralyzing commitments, Israel has posed a dilemma to Western democracies. Either one acts decisively and effectively against ideological enemies with massive destructive capacity, or falls into the trap of diplomatic paralysis that has often preceded greater catastrophes. This logic is beginning to influence the military doctrines of medium powers that see the Israeli case as a possible paradigm for national survival.
The international media apparatus has also been forced to reposition itself. Traditional ideological filters have been displaced by the volume and speed of unfolding events. The narrative is no longer exclusively in the hands of major outlets, but in decentralized networks that validate or dismantle stories in real time. Aware of this, Israel has begun to redesign its strategic communication, prioritizing precision, evidence, and the direct exposure of sensitive data to fight the moral battle in the digital arena.
The emergence of non-state actors as amplifiers of the conflict is another phenomenon to consider. Think tanks, academic foundations, and NGOs with political agendas disguised as humanitarian causes have taken a side in the global debate, operating as vehicles of pressure and emotional manipulation over Western populations that are poorly informed about the complexity of the conflict. This instrumentalization of humanitarianism will be one of the main challenges that Israel and its allies will have to counter.
In parallel, big tech companies have entered the scene as invisible arbiters. Content moderation, algorithmic direction, and selective censorship now constitute new forms of ideological intervention that influence public perception of the conflict. The war is not won solely on the physical battlefield, but in the validation of narratives, the production of consensus, and the symbolic construction of legitimacy within digital spaces.
International education will also not be immune to this realignment. Universities, research centers, and learning platforms must review their curricula, academic alliances, and funding sources. The conflict has revealed the extent to which supposedly neutral institutions have been infiltrated or instrumentalized by structures aligned with political Islamism, eroding fundamental values of freedom, critical debate, and pluralism.
In this context, intermediate powers are beginning to gain prominence. Countries such as Greece, India, Azerbaijan, and Morocco have shown that, with skilled diplomacy and strategic positioning, they can influence regional processes previously reserved for superpowers. This redesign of the international hierarchy presents an opportunity for new actors wishing to redefine their role without being trapped in traditional power orbitals.
Air defense systems are entering a phase of forced evolution. The Israeli experience has shown that even the best missile shields can be overwhelmed if not combined with predictive intelligence, electromagnetic spectrum control, and anticipatory neutralization of launch platforms. States that want to protect their sovereignty must invest not only in hardware but in comprehensive, multidimensional security systems that include cyber defense, artificial intelligence, and operative human networks.
Global energy policy is accelerating toward scenarios of diversification and autonomy. Europe, pressured by its dependence on Russian gas and the risks of instability in the Middle East, is doubling down on its commitment to renewable sources, agreements with African suppliers, and exploration of domestic reserves. This shift in the energy axis could alter the economic structure of several producing countries and open a new geopolitical front for control over emerging resources such as lithium, cobalt, and green hydrogen.
The international community will also need to reassess its humanitarian aid architecture. NGOs and international bodies operating in conflict zones can no longer function as neutral actors if their work is instrumentalized by factions or used as a shield for covert political operations. Transparency, traceability of funds, and oversight of affiliations must become basic conditions for operating credibly in sensitive areas.
In terms of technology, the conflict has accelerated the convergence between national security and digital development. The line separating a civilian company from a strategic actor has blurred. AI startups, big data platforms, and cybersecurity developers are becoming part of national defense structures. This fusion between the private sector and defense will require new legal frameworks that protect individual freedoms without weakening response capacity to hybrid threats.
Finally, national identity will return to the center of the public debate. The conflict has shown that peoples who preserve a cohesive narrative, an ethic of survival, and a clear will to defend their sovereignty are better able to withstand the assaults of prolonged wars. Israel, by reinforcing its historical consciousness and projecting it firmly, has regained strategic clarity that other democracies—eroded by political correctness and ideological relativism—are beginning to envy.
The conflict between Israel and Iran has established a new strategic doctrine for nations surrounded by existential threats. Preventive action is no longer taboo and is becoming an emerging doctrine for states that cannot afford to wait for an enemy’s first strike. This transformation affects not only military praxis but also international law, which must now decide whether to sanction defensive initiatives or regulate them under parameters adapted to 21st-century threats.
As the war progresses, the classical notion of sovereignty is expanding. It is no longer enough to protect physical borders; the defense of informational ecosystems, supply chains, transnational critical infrastructure, and the digital framework that structures modern states’ economic and social life is now imperative. Israel has understood this expanded sovereignty and has acted accordingly, while many countries are still debating its theoretical implications.
The war has also exposed the normative fatigue of international treaties drafted for conventional wars that no longer exist. Tactical asymmetry, non-state actors, mass manipulation through big data, and embedding civilian elements in war strategies make concepts such as proportionality, interference, legitimate defense, or war crimes require deep legal revision. In this vacuum, those who act with clarity and determination set the precedents.
Global political leadership now faces an unavoidable dilemma. Either it adapts to the emerging new order, or it is doomed to irrelevance. Figures who understand that politics no longer play out only in formal institutions but also in digital, cultural, and symbolic environments are setting the pace. Netanyahu, by acting as a statesman, general, and communication strategist, has transcended the mold of the traditional politician and reintroduced the figure of the integral leader on the international stage.
In education, the post-war period will demand a profound reformulation of teaching systems. New generations must be trained in critical information analysis, defense of non-negotiable principles, strategic memory history, and the capacity to act in hybrid environments. Israel could lead this global educational reform by offering programs that integrate history, security, technology, and ethics—forming a civilian elite capable of sustaining the long-term achievements of military victory.
Surgical in execution, precise in narrative, and visionary in its projections, the Israeli offensive has inaugurated a cycle where wars not only destroy enemies but redefine civilizations. The democracies that survive this era of fire will not be the most pacifist, but the most lucid, cohesive, and courageous.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario