Ansarollah Website. Report | Yahya Al-Shami

Could the Israeli entity be closer to defeat while still fighting?

Amid the escalating Zionist-American aggression against Iran, a silent but devastating question is taking root in the corridors of Zionist and international security circles: What if the war the entity is waging is not merely a temporary military confrontation, but rather the beginning of a multi-dimensional internal collapse? While Zionist leaders continue to promote the narrative of "decisive victory" and "changing the Middle East," the realities on the ground, figures, and intelligence reports reveal a completely opposite picture; a picture that paints the features of an unprecedented depletion of air defense systems, strategic paralysis in managing the fronts, a deep rift in "social" cohesion, and, most dangerous of all, a slide into a war with no clear political horizon or calculated exit strategy, where "deterrence" has transformed into a war of attrition that is gnawing at the entity's core and its ability to survive.

Before the war ends, the narrative collapses

The most dangerous scenario facing the enemy entity today is not merely the continuation of the military confrontation, but rather the moment the war ends on terms over which it has no control. This is the predicament that now looms clearly on the horizon. The new element in the equation is what diplomatic and media circles are reporting: a clear decision to link a comprehensive ceasefire to the fate of the multiple fronts, specifically the Lebanese arena. In practice, even if the Zionist entity tries to extricate itself from its current confrontation with a temporary truce or partial agreements, its rejection of a comprehensive agreement to end the war on Lebanon will keep the northern front open to all possibilities. Herein lies the existential dilemma: the enemy entity cannot close the Lebanese front without a heavy political and military price, which would be interpreted in the collective Zionist and international consciousness as a resounding defeat. At the same time, it cannot sustain the continued bleeding without direct and sustained American cover. In this context, the Zionist press—both opposition and pro-government—has begun to adopt approaches that cast doubt on the military option itself. Analysts in Haaretz speak of a "war without horizon," and analysts in Yediot Aharonot write that "talk of a decisive victory is no longer realistic in light of a multi-front war." These voices go beyond being mere political opposition to the government; they represent a mature security assessment reflecting a deep understanding that "Israel" has entered a dark tunnel from which it does not possess the keys to exit.

Infrastructure Depletion: A War of Two Bitter Choices

If the war continues and escalates, the entity will move from a phase of direct military confrontation to one of "comprehensive infrastructure warfare." The debate among Zionists is no longer solely about restoring "deterrence," but has transformed into an existential concern about how to protect power plants, desalination plants, and gas platforms in the Mediterranean. In Maariv newspaper, a military analyst wrote clearly: "Israel was not built to withstand continuous attacks on its vital infrastructure." This assessment is based on emerging realities on the ground; resistance missiles and drones are reaching deep into Israeli territory despite all layers of defense, causing partial disruptions to some vital services. With the potential for disruption to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, the entity finds itself facing a de facto siege, where import and supply capacity is shrinking amidst increasing internal pressure. This illustrates the quagmire of the reality the entity is living in, which reinforces the fundamental question: Was the decision to wage this war carefully calculated? Does the government have a real vision of its end, or is it just a "running away from the problem"?

The Ammunition and Air Defense Crisis

The numbers also reveal the extent of the predicament and the depth of the crisis in a more serious and truthful way, undermining the narrative of "victory" that Netanyahu is trying to promote using statistics. It is no longer a secret that the Zionist air defense systems are suffering from massive depletion. Reports in Yediot Aharonot and The Times of Israel indicate the start of a policy to "ration" the use of interceptor missiles, reflecting a terrifying gap between the intensity of missile threats and the ability to counter them. Military estimates indicate that the stockpile of advanced systems, such as David's Sling, Arrow, and Iron Dome, may only last for a very limited time if the current rate of attacks continues. Western research reports have gone even further, warning that the Arrow missile stockpile could "run out within days" in the event of a comprehensive and intensive confrontation, which explains why the so-called Zionist Ministry of War has resorted to contracting with German factories to urgently increase production. Even the United States, a strategic partner and primary supplier, has begun to experience shortages in its THAAD missile defense system stockpiles after consuming thousands of munitions in just a few weeks. This means that Israel faces a "time limit" on its defensive capabilities, and the question is not "Will the munitions run out?" but "When?" If the first month of the escalation consumed such a massive amount, what will the situation be like in the following months?

This glaring contradiction confirms that the Zionist leadership suffers from "appreciative blindness" regarding the capabilities of the resistance, which is explained by the political analyst Kobi Sadori, who said: "I will tell you something that clarifies that there is no such thing as a purely military solution... Dismantling Hezbollah is an important and unparalleled goal, but it cannot be achieved solely through a military operation, because the meaning of a military operation is the occupation of Lebanon, and none of us can occupy Lebanon now."

The Weapon of Lies and the Collapse of Morale

Amidst this confusion, "systematic lying" emerges as a tool used by the political leadership to create an illusion of victory and manipulate the public. However, this weapon has begun to backfire. Israeli society is starting to realize the enormous gap between what is said in press conferences and what is happening in shelters and on the streets. Israeli political analyst Raviv Drucker summarized this situation, saying: "The most damaging thing to morale in wartime is lying. When this enormous gap in expectations arises between those fleeing to shelters in the hope that the threat will one day disappear, and then discovering that that day will never come, they are lying to us from the beginning about regime change in Iran, which will not happen, and about Hezbollah being disarmed."

This climate puts the entity before a double and unprecedented test: a test of its ability to withstand military operations on the ground, and a test of its ability to maintain the cohesion of its crumbling home front. The war, which began with slogans of "decisiveness" and "deterrence," is gradually turning into a long-term war of attrition. In this type of war, the decisive factor is not just the number of raids or the extent of the destruction, but rather the ability of society to continue believing its leadership's narrative.

The Trap of Attrition and the Uncertain End

The deepest problem plaguing the enemy entity today stems from its miscalculations regarding the capabilities of Hezbollah and the resistance movements. Its approach to the confrontation is based on inaccurate assumptions, assumptions that have led it to a series of battlefield developments completely contrary to its plans. With repeated failures on every front, the psychological and political repercussions accumulate, and the purported strategy transforms into a "walking lie" propagated by the criminal Netanyahu and his team, who dream of reshaping the Middle East. A "preemptive" war, in its military sense, is supposed to eliminate an imminent threat. However, what Netanyahu has done is transform a future threat into a present, existential, and ongoing one, without possessing the necessary tools to end it. Herein lies the answer to the question: Why does the entity fear ending the war? It fears facing internal "Judgment Day," when the Zionist public will ask: Why did this war begin? And why did it end without victory, but rather with an attrition that has left the entity weaker and more fragmented than before? It is a "war of no return," where continuing is a slow suicide, and stopping is an explicit admission of defeat, and both pave the way for the entity's impending demise.