The American People Should Not Be Forced to Fund Israel’s Atrocities

04/15/2026 •Mises Wire•Connor O'Keeffe

https://mises.org/mises-wire/american-people-should-not-be-forced-fund-israels-atrocities

Today is tax day. It’s a day where Americans everywhere are forced to reflect on all the income we’ve been forced to hand over to the government. Unpleasant as that is by itself, it’s also worth going a step further and using the occasion to reflect on what the government is using our money for.

There are, of course, the big-ticket items. The programs the government spends the most money on: entitlements and war. The federal government spends trillions of dollars on generational wealth transfers like Social Security, demand-side healthcare subsidies like Medicare and Medicaid that have caused the price of healthcare to skyrocket for everybody (including those dependent on government support), and a massive war-making apparatus that is constantly creating new enemies by attempting to maintain a costly global empire—not to mention, by the way, all the wealth siphoned away from us by the government through inflation.

There’s plenty there to get upset about. But, these days, there’s another use of our tax dollars that, while not as quantitatively dramatic, is quickly, understandably, and rightfully coming under a lot of scrutiny: foreign aid to the Israeli government.

This is not a new spending program. The US government has been sending money to the Israeli government for decades. In total, Israel has received far more “foreign aid” from the US than any other government. And most of that money—especially in recent years—has gone to the Israeli military.

Also, much of this transfer has taken the form of recurring annual payments. So it’s not really accurate to think of this as foreign aid as most people understand it. It’s more accurate to say that a portion of Israeli government programs are funded by American taxpayers and have been for a long time.

This setup has been remarkably uncontroversial with the American public for nearly its entire existence. It’s remarkable because these are literally taxes being paid to a foreign government and because that government has carried out abhorrent atrocities since its founding—the exact kinds of atrocities Americans have prided themselves on opposing.

There are a lot of reasons for that persistent public and institutional support, ranging from tribalism to apathy. But a primary reason has been the success of the Israel lobby.

As I explained a few weeks ago, the massive war-making apparatus in DC was not built up to current levels because that was in the interest of the American people, but because it was in the interest of all the government bureaucrats and officials making up the “national security state” and the weapons companies and other “defense” contractors who stood to benefit.

These groups are perpetually lobbying heavily for more money, more power, and more foreign interventions. But their interest in growth is constant and largely indifferent to geopolitics. As long as the warfare state keeps growing and never shrinks, they will be happy.

The specific directions and objectives of American foreign policy are primarily determined by domestic and foreign interest groups that lobby to steer Washington’s war-making apparatus to serve their own ends.

That isn’t a glitch or the recent corruption by special interests of a system that used to work for the American people. It’s how American foreign policy has operated since at least the end of World War II. Government officials and industry insiders conspired to build a massive warfare state, then turned around and offered it up for sale to whichever groups had enough money to lobby effectively and the geopolitical enemies necessary to justify further growth.

The Israeli government and its ideological allies have proven to be remarkably good at using this setup. They are, arguably, the most effective foreign lobby in American history—especially because they have extended their efforts beyond politicians in DC to the opinion molders in American academia and media.

So, while the Israel lobby helped steer Washington’s foreign policy in ways beneficial to whatever regime was currently in power in Tel Aviv, they and their allies in the US also worked to ensure that pro-Israel narratives dominated in American media and, therefore, that the American public was either enthusiastically supportive of or, at least, indifferent to what the Israeli government was doing.

That narrative dominance began to show cracks after the internet shattered the Israel-friendly American political establishment’s monopoly over the information space. But the current historic collapse in public support for Israel didn’t really kick off until Hamas used its atrocity-laden attack on October 7, 2023, to bait the Israelis into a response that would destroy, not only the global sympathy they had garnered in the wake of the attack, but the broad US public support Israel had been enjoying for decades.

Israel’s response was predictable and brutal. The American public watched the Israelis rain airstrikes down on combatants and noncombatants at scale in Gaza for years. The horrors conducted by the Israeli military in that conflict, with US government support, go far beyond the scale of this article. But, overall, at least tens of thousands—likely over a hundred thousand—Gazans were killed in the war. And, at the very least, a substantial number of those killed were civilians.

The American public was clearly affected by the footage of horrors like children buried in rubble, paramedics being blown up while treating injured bombing survivors, crowds of hungry Gazans being shot at while desperately seeking food at aid stations, and much more. Public support for Israel began to take a nose dive.

And rightfully so. Not only were these atrocities happening in plain view, but we Americans were being forced to send money to the government committing them. Even after the Trump administration helped broker a ceasefire last year, the American public’s support for Israel has continued to fall. And one only has to glance at the news to see why.

For starters, Israel is continuing to kill people in Gaza. Since the so-called ceasefire went into effect last fall, the Israeli military has killed over 750 people and injured over 2,000.

And then, of course, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu helped encourage Trump to launch this latest air war on Iran. A war that was unpopular with the American public from the beginning, and that has caused significant and unavoidable economic damage that is now beginning to hit an American population that was already struggling economically. The war killed thousands of people—including thirteen American soldiers—all to momentarily deplete Iran’s military capabilities to help shore up Israeli hegemony in the region for the near future (notably, the operation has, so far, appeared to have had the opposite effect).

And finally, after Hezbollah entered the war that the US and Israel started, likely in an attempt to draw some heat away from their allies in Iran, the Israeli government launched a major invasion of southern Lebanon with the explicit stated purpose of permanently displacing over 600,000 people to expand Israel’s territorial control up to the Litani River. Over a million people have been, at least temporarily, displaced so far, and the operation has already brought about the exact kind of brutal civilian death the American public was already growing increasingly troubled by.

Much of that came last week when Israel launched a massive bombing campaign across the city of Beirut that killed over 250 people and injured over a thousand. The Israeli government first announced that the strikes had targeted and killed a Hezbollah leader, but later revised their statement to say it was the leader’s nephew who had been killed. But the timing and intensity of the strikes have led many to speculate that its purpose was actually to undermine Trump’s attempt to bring about a ceasefire and return to the negotiating table with Iran.

That is, at the very least, a believable theory that is in line with the recent behavior of Israeli government officials—especially Netanyahu, whose looming corruption trial gives him a strong personal reason to extend any and all wars Israel is involved in for as long as he’s able to. And it feeds the growing impression that Israel is emboldened by and taking advantage of US support.

In addition to those strikes on Beirut, the Israeli military in Lebanon has also targeted paramedics and medical facilities, killed a UN peacekeeper, struck and collapsed residential buildings, and even bombed a funeral where four family members of the deceased were killed, including a girl under the age of two. And moving beyond Lebanon, Israeli forces also recently killed a teenager in Syria and a nine-year-old girl in Gaza. And all of this has occurred in just the past two weeks.

It is ridiculous that, as Americans, our government forces us to bear a heavy tax burden to fund expensive domestic programs that make our lives harder, less affordable, and less safe, all to benefit government officials and their well-connected friends. Even more ridiculous is the fact that—in addition to all that—we are forced to pay taxes to other governments, too.

But as terrible as those rackets are, they are nothing compared to the moral hazards and moral outrages we are forced to pay for through Washington’s “foreign aid” to Israel. The American population as a whole is finally starting to wake up to this reality. But, regardless of opinion polls, all of us who oppose what the Israeli government is doing should, at the very least, not be forced to fund it against our will.

Israel’s Expansion Means an Unraveling of Middle East Stability

by José Niño | Apr 20, 2026

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/israels-expansion-means-an-unraveling-of-middle-east-stability/

The recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran may have paused the most intense phase of direct military confrontation, but it has done nothing to resolve the deeper questions about Middle Eastern stability that have emerged since October 7, 2023. Behind the temporary calm lies a profound transformation in Israeli strategic thinking, one that has moved from containment to active regional reorganization.

Israel is not a normal democracy that abides by the rule of law or legal restraint. It is very much an expansionist state with bold ambitions and a demonstrated willingness to break international law. The events of the past two years have made this reality impossible to ignore.

The “Greater Israel” project, a term that has carried two primary meanings over the decades, has moved from the ideological fringe into the governing coalition of Israeli politics. In its narrower, post-1967 usage, “Greater Israel” referred to Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. In its maximalist, biblicist form, drawn from Genesis 15:18, it invokes the territory stretching “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates,” a vast area encompassing parts of modern Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and potentially reaching into Iraq.

Once confined to religious nationalists and settler ideologues, this expansionist vision now sits at the cabinet table. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for Israel to “expand to Damascus,” displayed a map showing Jordan as part of Israel at a 2023 speech in Paris, and settler leader Daniella Weiss has publicly stated that “the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile.”

Netanyahu’s coalition agreement explicitly declares that “Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all parts of the Land of Israel” and that “the government will promote and develop settlements in all parts of the Land of Israel.” As Al Jazeera reported in February 2026, figures like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, once regarded as outside the mainstream, “are now in government, reflecting a wider radicalisation within Israeli society itself.”

Perhaps most striking is that this rhetoric is no longer confined to religious rights. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, an ostensibly secular figure, stated in February 2026 that he supports “anything that will allow the Jews a large, broad, strong land,” adding that “the borders are the borders of the Bible.” When even centrist politicians invoke biblical mandates to justify territorial expansion, the ideological transformation becomes undeniable.

The conflict with Hezbollah has catalyzed a significant shift in Israeli policy regarding Lebanon’s territorial integrity. The previous doctrine of containing Hezbollah has given way to explicit calls from senior Israeli officials for the permanent occupation and annexation of territory up to the Litani River, approximately thirty kilometers north of the current border.

Smotrich has repeatedly asserted that the military campaign in Lebanon must result in a “change of Israel’s borders.” On March 23, 2026, he told an Israeli radio program that the campaign “needs to end with a different reality entirely, both with the Hezbollah decision but also with the change of Israel’s borders.” He then declared at a Knesset faction meeting that “the Litani must be our new border with the state of Lebanon, just like the Yellow Line in Gaza and like the buffer zone and peak of the Hermon in Syria,” adding, “I say here definitively, in every room and in every discussion, too.” Al Jazeera reported that these were “the most explicit” statements by a senior Israeli official on seizing Lebanese territory since the current military operations began.

Defense Minister Israel Katz has adopted a complementary posture. He announced at the end of March that the IDF will maintain “security control over the entire area up to the Litani River” and that “hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon who evacuated northward will not return south of the Litani River until security for the residents of the north is ensured.”

The shift toward annexation is bolstered by the emergence of Uri Tzafon, a movement founded in late March 2024 that advocates for the establishment of Jewish civilian settlements in southern Lebanon. The group, whose name means “awaken, O North” in Hebrew, has organized conferences focused on what it describes as the “occupation of the territory and settlement” of southern Lebanon. Its leaders have invoked conquest, expulsion, and settlement as the necessary sequence for transforming the region.

Senior rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh wrote in a public letter that “after the conquest and expulsion of the hostile population, a Jewish settlement must be established, thus completing the victory.” Eliyahu Ben Asher, a founding member of Uri Tzafon, told Jewish Currents that “the Israeli-Lebanese border is a ridiculous colonial border,” building on his earlier assertion that “what is called ‘southern Lebanon’ is really and truly simply the northern Galilee.”

In mid-2024, the group used drones and balloons to drop eviction notices on Lebanese border towns, informing residents that “they are in the Land of Israel, which belongs to the Jewish people, and that they are required to evacuate immediately,” according to a post the group made on its Telegram channel. In February 2026, dozens of Uri Tzafon activists crossed the border fence near the Lebanese town of Yaroun and planted trees inside Lebanese territory in what the group called a “moral and historical step.” The IDF detained two individuals and called the crossing “a serious criminal offense.” By April 2026, Jewish Currents reported that Uri Tzafon’s once-marginal ideas had gained “broad governmental and public support,” with the movement’s leaders now setting their sights on territory beyond the Litani, toward the Zaharani River, another dozen miles deeper into Lebanon.

The pursuit of “Greater Israel” and the annexation of buffer zones draw on a lineage of Israeli strategic thought that advocates for the fragmentation of rival Arab states. This lineage includes the 1982 Yinon Plan, an article published in the Hebrew journal Kivunim (“Directions”) and authored by Oded Yinon, who had served as a senior official in the Israeli Foreign Ministry and as a journalist for The Jerusalem Post. Yinon argued that the borders drawn by colonial powers were inherently unstable and that Israel’s security would be best served by what he called the “dissolution of the military capabilities of Arab states east of Israel.” He specifically proposed that Iraq should be divided into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite entities, and that Syria and Lebanon should similarly fragment along sectarian lines.

The deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey represents one of the most significant diplomatic casualties of the post-October 7 era. Israeli leadership has designated Turkey not merely as a problematic partner but as a strategic adversary whose regional ambitions require a coordinated counter-alliance.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz spearheaded this posture with highly personalized and escalatory rhetoric. Following Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s July 28, 2024, speech suggesting that his country might intervene in Israel “just as we entered Karabakh, just as we entered Libya,” Katz responded on X that Erdoğan was “following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein” and that he “should remember what happened there and how it ended,” posting a photograph of Erdoğan alongside the former Iraqi dictator. Katz also instructed Israeli diplomats to “urgently dialogue with all NATO members” to push for Turkey’s condemnation and expulsion from the alliance, calling Turkey “a country which hosts the Hamas headquarters” and describing it as part of “the Iranian axis of evil.”

Beyond rhetoric, Netanyahu has articulated a vision for a regional counter-alliance. On February 23, 2026, ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel, Netanyahu announced a proposed “hexagon of alliances” that would include Israel, India, Greece, and Cyprus, along with unnamed Arab, African, and Asian states. He stated that the initiative was designed to counter “the radical axes, both the radical Shia axis, which we have struck very hard, and the emerging radical Sunni axis.” While Netanyahu did not explicitly name Turkey as leading the Sunni axis, Israeli political discourse and analysts have pointed to Turkey under Erdoğan as the primary concern, with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett recently describing Turkey as “the new Iran.”

The shifts in Israeli rhetoric and doctrine since October 7 have had profound implications for its international standing. The “Greater Israel” rhetoric and the annexation of southern Lebanon have led to what observers describe as a “dark new phase” in Israel’s relations with the international community. Long-standing partners, including the United Kingdom, have suspended trade negotiations and imposed sanctions on individuals involved in the settler movement, citing the strident rhetoric of Israeli ministers as a primary cause.

The military campaign against Iran in early 2026 and the subsequent Iranian retaliation through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered the world’s biggest oil supply disruption since the 1970s. The reclassification of the Strait as a maximum war-risk zone led to insurance premiums surging by over 1,000% contributing to a global fuel crisis and massive volatility in financial markets. Within Israel, the economic damage from the multi-front war has been estimated at over $11.5 billion.

As Israel moves to dismantle the borders of the twentieth century, the resulting shockwaves are rattling both regional alliances and global energy markets. The Jewish state’s transformation into an expansionist power has turned former partners into strategic adversaries, making the recent ceasefire feel like a brief intermission in a much larger drama. In this new Middle East, the map is being redrawn by force, and the cost of that ink is being felt from the Litani River to the Strait of Hormuz.

Hungary’s Incoming Prime Minister Says ICC Warrant Will Be Enforced If Netanyahu Enters the Country

Magyar plans to reverse Orban's move to withdraw Hungary from the ICC

by Dave DeCamp | April 20, 2026 a

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/04/20/hungarys-incoming-prime-minister-says-icc-warrant-will-be-enforced-if-netanyahu-enters-the-country/

Hungary’s incoming prime minister, Peter Magyar, has said that his government would fulfill its obligations as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he entered the country.

The ICC issued its warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant back in 2024 over their role in war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The court also sought warrants for three Hamas leaders, but they have all been killed by Israel.

Hungary’s outgoing leader, Viktor Orban, hosted Netanyahu in Budapest last year and announced his intention to withdraw Hungary from the ICC, something Magyar has said he will reverse.

Netanyahu spoke with Magyar last week after Magyar’s election victory and said that the prime minister-elect had invited him to Budapest, raising questions about Magyar’s position on the ICC warrant. When asked to clarify on Monday, Magyar said he had invited all the world leaders he had spoken with to the 70th anniversary of Hungary’s 1956 anti-Soviet uprising, but that he would still enforce the warrant.

Magyar told reporters that he made it clear “even to the Israeli prime minister” that he intended to stop Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC before it takes effect on June 2.

“If someone is a member of the International Criminal Court and a person who is wanted enters our country, then they must be taken into custody,” he said. “I don’t need to spell everything out over the phone. I assume that every head of state and government is familiar with these laws.”

Israelis don't pay for the weapons we 'sell' to them — US taxpayers do

Most arms 'sales' are financed through Foreign Military Financing, which is basically an American subsidized gift card

Stephen Semler

Apr 06, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-arms-sales-to-israel/

The Trump administration expects U.S. taxpayers to fund not only its own military adventurism but Israel’s as well.

Ending American subsidies for Israel’s wars is one reason why Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) recently filed Joint Resolutions of Disapproval opposing $659 million in President Donald Trump-approved bomb sales to Israel, with many of the bombs coming directly from U.S. stocks.

“Given the horrific destruction that Israel’s extremist government has wrought on Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, the last thing in the world that American taxpayers need to do right now is to provide 22,000 new bombs to the [Benjamin] Netanyahu government,” Sanders said in a statement.

Van Hollen added that “Congress must use all the tools at our disposal to end Trump’s war, including stopping the transfer…of taxpayer-funded bombs to the Netanyahu government.”

The senators are right to highlight U.S. taxpayers’ role in these arms deals. That they’re reported as sales belies who’s actually paying for them. Americans, not Israelis, pay for the vast majority of U.S. arms sales to Israel.

Who really pays for U.S. arms sales to Israel

U.S. arms sales to Israel aren’t really sales, at least not in the typical sense. Israel’s position as purchaser in these weapons deals isn’t synonymous with funder. This is made clear in the arms sales notifications themselves.

Consider the four most recent notified arms sales to Israel published in the Federal Register: $740 million for armored personnel carriers, $1.98 billion for tactical vehicles and accessories, $3.8 billion for attack helicopters and related weaponry, and $150 million for utility helicopters and parts. After “Prospective Purchaser,” all these notifications list Government of Israel. After “Funding Source,” all list Foreign Military Financing — or FMF, the U.S. military aid program through which Israel receives at least $3.3 billion a year.

Even that analogy is generous. The relationship between military spending and jobs is not self-evident. In 1985, the U.S. military budget was $295 billion — $746 billion in today’s dollars — and there were 3 million workers in the U.S. arms industry. By 2021, the U.S. military budget had increased by $132 billion in real terms — to $879 billion — while the number of arms industry workers had dropped to 1.1 million. Despite military spending increasing 18% above inflation, there was a 63% drop in arms industry employment.

Under Biden, U.S. taxpayers funded $18 billion in arms “sales” to Israel

American arms sales are either U.S. government-brokered (“Foreign Military Sales”) or commercial (“Direct Commercial Sales”). I collected data on both via the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s (DSCA) Historical Sales Books and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ (DDTC) Section 655 Reports, respectively. Both yearly publications tally the value of authorized arms sales.

The Biden administration authorized $22 billion in arms sales to Israel, including more than $13.2 billion in U.S. government-brokered sales and over $8.7 billion in commercial sales. According to the DSCA report, 90% of the government-brokered deals were funded with U.S. military aid. The DDTC report doesn’t specify the funding source, but 68% is a reasonable estimate based on the average annual share of FMF funding that Israel reportedly spends on commercial sales.¹

All told, U.S. taxpayers funded $17.8 billion in arms sales to Israel under Biden — $11.9 billion government-brokered and $5.9 billion commercial — 81% of the $22 billion in sales from 2021–2024. That’s nearly $18 billion in subsidies disguised as sales.

U.S. taxpayers deserve a refund, not more of the same from Trump.

 

How Israel and the US are losing the broader battle against Iran

Feras Abu Helal

15 April 2026

Despite tactical victories, including a wave of assassinations of key Iranian leaders, they cannot translate battlefield momentum into a political win.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-israel-and-us-are-losing-broader-battle-against-iran

As the US-Israeli war on Iran has temporarily halted, the question of victory and defeat is fuelling debate across traditional and social media, as well as in political discourse.

Iranian politicians and figures within US President Donald Trump’s administration have claimed victory. The UAE, which was in a defensive position but did not conduct offensive operations, has also claimed victory.

So, who is really winning this war? This question is more complex than it appears.

Contemporary wars pose a major challenge to analysts and historians seeking to ascribe victory or defeat to any party. Unlike historical wars - where clear battlefield victories can be translated into political victories - contemporary wars often have ambiguous outcomes.

In the post-World World Two order, founded on a liberal democratic discourse about “human rights” and “international law”, the criteria for victory and defeat shifted. This complexity led to the emergence of the “winning hearts and minds” concept, first during the Vietnam War, and more clearly in the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

Perceptions of victory and defeat are now dominated by propaganda, subjectivity, and the notion of asymmetrical warfare. The ambiguity of results allows every side to claim victory; in democratic systems, this enables the ruling party to more effectively appeal to voters. In authoritarian states, claiming victory helps the regime retain popular support and legitimacy.

The notion of asymmetrical warfare also gives the weaker side, whether a country or a non-state organisation, the opportunity to claim victory if it manages to avoid collapse and keep its resistance ideology intact. The weaker side is usually willing to suffer more than the stronger one, viewing war as an existential threat.

From victory to defeat

In contemporary wars, a military victory does not always translate into a political victory. The Vietnam War is a clear example, as the victory of the US and its South Vietnamese allies in the Tet Offensive ultimately became a political defeat, helping the Viet Cong with recruitment efforts and fuelling the American anti-war movement.

The assessment of military or political victories is even more difficult when conflicts are ongoing. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, which was quickly labelled a military and political victory, soon turned out to be a defeat, handing Iran maximum leverage in the post-Saddam landscape.

The apparent US “victory” in Afghanistan in 2001, when the Americans toppled the Taliban regime, is an even clearer example of a temporary victory that turned into a total defeat within two decades.

Because it is an asymmetrical, ongoing conflict, it is particularly difficult to assess victory and defeat in the context of the Iran war. The US and Israel have had tactical wins, assassinating dozens of Iranian military and political leaders, and causing massive devastation to the country’s infrastructure. 

Yet up until the recent ceasefire, Iran continued striking back against Israel and the Gulf states hosting a US military presence.

Both sides have claimed victory, taking advantage of the subjectivity of this terminology in contemporary warfare. The Americans and Israelis have pointed to the massive damage inflicted on Iranian institutions, missile capabilities and nuclear sites. But Iran has pointed to the fact that its political system remains intact, along with its command-and-control capabilities, while it has deepened its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz.

Indeed, both sides have grounds and reasons to “sell” victory to their people, having each achieved certain tactical victories, particularly on the US-Israeli side.

Failed objectives

Assessing who has achieved a political victory, however, does not favour the US and Israel. The war’s political goals - forcing “regime change” in Iran, fuelling a popular uprising, encouraging armed Kurdish forces to surge against the state, and finishing off Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes - have all failed. 

Despite tactical wins, which were made possible by the huge gap in military capabilities, none of the political goals that drove the US and Israel to launch this war were achieved. Instead, Iran successfully shifted the conflict’s focus to securing free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

By using its ability to control movement through the strait, a strategy that has caused major global economic strain, Iran found itself in a stronger bargaining position. It headed to negotiations in Pakistan with a 10-point plan, which would have formalised its leverage over the strait, allowed its nuclear programme to continue, and extended the ceasefire to Lebanon.

The Trump administration initially seemed receptive to the plan, but later backed away from it, leading to a breakdown of talks in Islamabad.

In the meantime, the global reputations of Israel and the US have deteriorated; even close allies have refused to participate in the war, viewing it as illegal under international law. 

As the most powerful liberal democracy in the world, the US could thus lose the battle of “hearts and minds”, having launched a war that is unlawful, according to UN experts; attacked civilian targets, including a girl’s school, killing scores of children; assassinated the legitimate leader of a sovereign country; and threatened to annihilate an entire civilisation.

For Iran’s part, it has lost political points by attacking civilian targets across the Gulf, including oil facilities and power stations, leading to heightened tensions between Iran and its regional neighbours, who view these incidents as a threat to their national security. This could lead to the Gulf states doubling down on their ties with the US-Israeli axis, making it more difficult for Iran to repair relations in the future.

Overall, it is too early to confirm the winners and losers of this war. But given the characteristics of contemporary warfare, it is fair to suggest that the US and Israel have secured a tactical military victory, but are losing the broader political battle.