Following the admissions of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu of the failure to achieve military goals and the continuation of Iran’s missile power and nuclear program, assessments show that despite the heavy costs, the US and Zionist axis have leaned more towards escalating tensions and confrontational options than the diplomatic path.
Publish dateMonday 11 May 2026 - 11:59
Story Code : 354218
Afghan Voice Agency (AVA): Yesterday (Sunday, May 10), Iran sent a response to the US message through mediators after numerous reviews.
An hour later, the Israeli Prime Minister indicated in an interview with the American CBS network that the war is not over yet.
It was on the twentieth day of the war that Netanyahu clearly revealed his war goals and said that Israel’s demands from the war with Iran, in addition to the desire for overthrow, include “the destruction of missile power” and “the destruction of nuclear power.”
In this interview, Netanyahu confirmed that none of these goals have been achieved, adding: “Iran still has nuclear materials; it still has ballistic missiles; and there is still a lot of work to be done.”
The question is, if the other side has failed to achieve its goals through war and Iran has been able to inflict heavy blows on their interests, why is the military option still on the agenda?
In response to this question, it is said that the United States and Israel are still in a strategic stalemate despite failing to achieve the stated goals. In a way, previous military and political plans, including naval pressure and attempts to change regional equations, have not yielded results.
In this context, after the failure of military means, attempts have also been made to achieve the goals through diplomatic means and political pressure.
Overall, the analyses show that the main issue is not the amount of damage, but the strategic stalemate of the other side; A situation in which the continuation or resumption of conflicts is presented as one of the remaining options, while the expansion of the capabilities of the opposing side can further complicate the crisis equations.
An hour later, the Israeli Prime Minister indicated in an interview with the American CBS network that the war is not over yet.
It was on the twentieth day of the war that Netanyahu clearly revealed his war goals and said that Israel’s demands from the war with Iran, in addition to the desire for overthrow, include “the destruction of missile power” and “the destruction of nuclear power.”
In this interview, Netanyahu confirmed that none of these goals have been achieved, adding: “Iran still has nuclear materials; it still has ballistic missiles; and there is still a lot of work to be done.”
The question is, if the other side has failed to achieve its goals through war and Iran has been able to inflict heavy blows on their interests, why is the military option still on the agenda?
In response to this question, it is said that the United States and Israel are still in a strategic stalemate despite failing to achieve the stated goals. In a way, previous military and political plans, including naval pressure and attempts to change regional equations, have not yielded results.
In this context, after the failure of military means, attempts have also been made to achieve the goals through diplomatic means and political pressure.
Overall, the analyses show that the main issue is not the amount of damage, but the strategic stalemate of the other side; A situation in which the continuation or resumption of conflicts is presented as one of the remaining options, while the expansion of the capabilities of the opposing side can further complicate the crisis equations.
avapress.net/vdccs0q142bqpi8.-ya2.html
Top hits
