The hostilities between Israel and Iran that have unfolded in recent weeks appear to have been effectively suspended, according to current reports. However, this silence lends itself to speculation about the reasons for the dissipation of hostilities and possible ways for further development of the situation.
One of the key reasons why the conflict was temporarily suspended is the limited material resources for both sides. The Israeli military relies on strategic support from the U.S., but the American military-industrial complex is under immense strain. The U.S. has been occupied in recent years supplying to Ukraine, aiding Israel, and maintaining a military presence in the Indo-Pacific region in the face of escalating confrontation with China. These activities have drainedheavily the Pentagon’s stockpiles, and combat reserve replenishment will require a lot of effort and time. Israel, depending on supplies provided by the Americans, must engage in an extremely careful policy in significant military operations. At the same time, operations against Iranian proxy forces in the region (Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis) are in progress, which requires high expenditure.
Iran has suffered serious losses. According to sources, the Israeli strikes knocked out a significant part of the air defence and missile defence system, damaged military aircraft and hit missile infrastructure. The most significant damage, according to analysts, may have been to Iran’s nuclear programme, but an accurate assessment can only be made after intelligence analysis. Domestically, strikes on the command staff of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other high-ranking military personnel have also been recorded. Despite this, the political regime in Tehran has remained stable. Iran is likely to temporarily reduce the level of foreign policy activity, but in the long term will maintain its strategic objectives, including the development of its nuclear programme and confrontation with Israel.
The standoff has also revealed the absence of an effective allied bloc around Iran. Amid the escalating conflict, there has been no support from key partners – such as Russia, China, Pakistan and the DPRK. Even Iranian proxy organizations within the region (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) have restrained themselves from intervention. The Arab monarchies have also avoided it, demonstrating their commitment to a pragmatic course of economic development and stability. Their concernlies in the export of hydrocarbons and maintaining their investment attractiveness, i.e., avoiding a destabilizing war.
The current situation reveals how in today’s world the notion of ideologically consistent and solid military-political blocs is increasinglybecoming outdated. International players seek national interests, economic gains and freedom of strategy. This reduces the likelihood of the rise to a world war, but at the same time isolates regional wars.
In the case of Iran, its temporary weakening does not mean that the threat has been eliminated. The Tehran regime, despite all the losses that it has suffered, remains strong, and its ideologically motivated foreign policy has not altered. Israel, for its part, has been showing a willingness to act but also showing the limitation of its own power in light of prolonged resource strains.
