Is the War Really Over in Iran?

 

Is the War Really Over in Iran?

Many people today struggle to understand the assertion that “the war in Iran is over.” This misunderstanding often stems from a confusion between two distinct levels: the military level and the political level.

From a strictly military standpoint, the war can be considered over as soon as the objectives assigned to the engaged forces have been achieved. For the commanders conducting the operation, the criterion is clear: the targeting list. When all targets that align with the political center of gravity are included on this list and have been struck—infrastructure, command centers, military capabilities—the mission is accomplished. At that point, for the military, the operation is over. The planning and execution have produced the desired effect. The engaged forces have no further actions to carry out: their operational objectives have been met. In other words, the military machine has done its job.

But that does not mean the war is truly over.

For war is not limited to the destruction of military targets. It is also—and above all—a political instrument, as Carl von Clausewitz theorized in On War. Diplomats and political leaders pursue objectives that go far beyond the operational dimension: changing behavior, obtaining concessions, imposing a new balance of power, or transforming a regional equilibrium.

This reality is not new. As far back as Niccolò Machiavelli reminded us in The Prince, it is not enough to conquer a state; one must also know how to preserve it through prudence and skill. That is precisely where the danger of the aftermath lies: the strikes may be over, but the ability to stabilize, preserve, and durably transform the balance of power remains an immense and often underestimated challenge.

Yet these political objectives are not necessarily achieved when the military objectives are. There can even be a profound time lag between the two: the military finishes its mission while the diplomats are only just beginning theirs.

In reality, the military produces effects, while political leaders seek results.

Military objectives are tangible: their effects are visible to everyone. Destroyed bases, neutralized systems, struck infrastructure. The public can see these results immediately. Diplomacy, on the other hand, operates according to a logic of discretion and the long term. Negotiations often take place far from the cameras, through indirect or informal channels, and their effects can only be measured over time.

This is why a paradoxical impression can arise: the war appears to be over on the ground, but it continues in reality on the political level—and especially in the aftermath.

In the end, every war has two different conclusions:

1. The military end, when the operational objectives have been achieved.
2. The political end, when the objectives pursued by the state are realized.

Between these two moments, a period of uncertainty can open up where the guns fall silent, but the war is not yet truly over. For in every war, the military closes an operation; only the politicians close the war.

And it is precisely in that interval—between military success and political outcome—that the real fate of the conflict is often decided.

#Iran #Clausewitz #Strategy #InternationalRelations #Defense #Diplomacy #BalanceOfPower

@WarOnTheRocks  @CNASdc  @AtlanticCouncil

 @EliLake  @KoriSchake  @ElbridgeColby @Galadriell__