A dramatic turning point: How to define victory in the war against Iran - opinion

On the one hand, American involvement is no small matter. It would undeniably shape the trajectory of this war. If the US steps in, particularly with its bunker-busting capabilities, then dealing with Iran’s hardened nuclear sites – most notably the underground Fordow facility – would be faster and far more efficient.

But let’s not assume that US involvement would bring the war to an immediate end. Iran may lack the ability to strike the US mainland, but it retains significant capacity to retaliate against American assets across the region. It can disrupt the Persian Gulf, target American military bases, and hit key allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

From Israel’s perspective, the operation so far has been a relative success. Iranian air defenses have largely been neutralized, allowing Israel to operate with almost-complete freedom over Iranian skies. This doesn’t just mean conducting additional strikes, but also the ability to deploy drones and surveillance aircraft to maintain 24/7 intelligence collection over Iranian territory.

This development might be hard to appreciate in the aftermath of Thursday morning’s missile barrage, which struck Soroka Hospital in Beersheba and residential areas in Ramat Gan. But according to the IDF, Iran is struggling to launch the large-scale missile barrages it had hoped for. It reportedly planned to fire hundreds of missiles at a time, as it did in April and October last year.

But that hasn’t happened – not because Iran doesn’t want to, but because many of its launchers and missile bases have been damaged or destroyed by Israel. The result: lower-than-expected volume and effectiveness in Iran’s response.

Then there’s the damage to Iran’s nuclear program. The scope, while impressive, remains incomplete. Natanz – the primary enrichment site – has reportedly sustained extensive damage, according to the IAEA. Arak, the heavy water reactor, appears to have been destroyed. Parchin, a site associated with Iran’s secret weapons development work, has been hit, and Isfahan – the main uranium conversion facility – has also suffered serious damage.

But one critical site remains: Fordow. The deeply buried enrichment facility near Qom is arguably the most sensitive and hardened site in Iran’s nuclear arsenal. While Israel is not believed to possess a conventional weapon capable of penetrating Fordow – only the US holds the GBU-57 bunker buster, a 13-ton bomb that could do the job – it is difficult to imagine that Israel would have launched this campaign without some plan in place for addressing that facility.

From day one, the declared objective was to deal a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and that cannot happen without damaging Fordow. IAEA reports suggest that uranium is stored at the site and, if left intact, Iran could quickly refine it, make a crude device, test it and declare itself a nuclear power.

Which is why Israeli officials have said that the campaign will not end without Fordow. And while US support remains strategic, it would be reckless for Israel to have built a plan dependent solely on Washington. Over the last six days, Israel has shown remarkable ingenuity and operational reach – both in the air and on the ground deep inside Iran. There is little reason to believe that Fordow is beyond the reach of that same creativity.

But it’s important to maintain perspective. What Israel is doing is not the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, but the delay of it. This is not Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007, where a single airstrike took out a single facility and ended the program. In both of those cases, the nuclear effort was dependent on foreign assistance. Once destroyed, those regimes lacked the means to rebuild.

Iran is different. The program is indigenous, the know-how is domestic, and while many senior scientists have been killed over the past week, their knowledge is replaceable. Iran can and likely will eventually try to rebuild.

There’s another key difference: in Iraq and Syria, the operation ended the moment the bombs dropped. No retaliation followed. With Iran, it was never going to be that simple. The Islamic Republic has spent years building a vast arsenal of missiles and drones. It has prepared for this moment. A strike was always going to provoke a response, and a prolonged one at that.

SO WHEN will this end? There are three plausible scenarios:

First, Israel could strike Fordow and then declare its mission accomplished. From there, it would adopt a wait-and-see approach, responding only if Iran escalates further. The risk here is that without a mechanism in place to prevent reconstruction, Iran will rebuild, and Israel will be back to square one in a matter of years.

Second, the US could step in, using its superior firepower to destroy Iran’s facilities in a way Israel cannot. Coupled with economic pressure, this could extend the delay significantly. In this case, regime instability becomes a relevant factor. A weakened regime might be forced to suspend its nuclear ambitions just to survive. This is essentially the vision Defense Minister Israel Katz hinted at on Thursday when he said he had instructed the IDF to hit targets that “undermine the regime.”

Third, Iran could agree to return to negotiations and accept restrictions on its enrichment program. A full dismantling is unlikely, but a freeze – especially one verified by international observers – could serve as an off-ramp. That would allow both Israel and the international community to claim success.

One lesson from Gaza is that an exit strategy matters just as much as the entry. Nearly two years after October 7, hostages remain in captivity, and the war continues without a clear endpoint. Israel’s operation against Iran, while brilliantly executed so far – especially in its intelligence penetration and decapitation of the military’s top ranks – must now be translated into a durable outcome.

Success isn’t measured just by what was hit, but by what changes on the ground afterward. The mission has already showcased Israel’s military prowess, but without a long-term mechanism to prevent Iran from simply picking up the pieces, the gains could fade.

Whatever exit is chosen – through destruction, deterrence, or diplomacy – Israel must ensure that what happened this past week was not in vain, but remains a dramatic turning point in the history of this region.