"Wars usually end when the costs they create exceed the goals they aim to achieve," is a quote attributed to Henry Kissinger, a guru of diplomacy in our time. This statement is important because it reminds us that wars are multi-layered processes, and that behind what is seen as military success on the battlefield lie economic, political, and psychological costs, allowing us to predict how far the conflict might go. Because goals and the price to be paid to achieve them are a whole. No matter how powerful you may seem, there is no easy victory once you enter the arena. Calculations made before deciding to start a war generally focus on quick and decisive results. However, if the desired outcome is not achieved in the desired time, the economic and psychological burden, social fatigue, political responsibility, and diplomatic costs begin to increase. As victory is delayed, the goals initially identified as "essential" become out of reach and may even become matters that can be abandoned. Indeed, in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the widening gap between cost and goal, and the abandonment of the initial goals, made it possible to end the war.

The journey to war is not an easily predictable, mathematical process. Before the war, technical experts, politicians, and soldiers work together to create a roadmap. When they form their own forces, they forget that their rivals are also meeting at a table with a similar team to neutralize the other side's tactics. Underestimating the enemy and falling into a mathematical trap is the biggest mistake. Because even the weakest has a defense and counter-attack plan. In asymmetric warfare like today's, where one side is considered undeniably superior militarily, the stronger side is often on full display with all its potential. You know what it can do; you know it can destroy you. The weaker side, on the other hand, must prepare its counter-potential, hidden in its deep corridors, to emerge only in an emergency. Like a fox at a den of wolves, being cunning, intelligent, and mysterious is its greatest asset against the wolf's brute force; otherwise, it will be served as a lamb on the menu. To think that Iran can easily be served as an appetizer can only be the result of a limited intellectual capacity.

The war between the US-Israel bloc and Iran is not a new and sudden crisis. It is a new act in an unending reckoning and quest for revenge that has lasted for about fifty years. The 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution was more than just a regime change; it shook regional balances. It was a historical turning point. With the overthrow of the Shah, the US not only lost its most reliable ally in the region but also had to confront an ideological actor challenging it. Therefore, the Islamic revolution and the new Iran have always been much more than just an ordinary foreign policy issue for the US-led Western system. Since the revolution, the Western world, under the influence of US pressure, has never been able to fully normalize relations with Iran. Pressure on the new regime has been maintained through indirect and coercive means such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, technological embargoes, and sometimes covert operations. The long-term sanctions imposed after the devastation of the Iran-Iraq war aimed to push Iran out of the global system and force the regime to surrender. The opposite happened, and the state apparatus and the regime integrated with a defensive reflex. The small and large protests that the people, weary of the regime's oppression, occasionally took to the streets were brutally suppressed by the regime, as they were seen as operations by traitors collaborating with the enemy. The number of people who lost their lives in the recent protests in Iran was close to the human loss produced by a medium-scale war.

The US confrontation with Iran, starting in the 2000s, was conducted through a proxy given to Israel. The Arab-Israeli conflict evolved into an Iran-Israel perspective. The pressure exerted under the pretext of halting Iran's nuclear program, following the 12-day war, which served as a preview, escalated into an active hot conflict with the attack codenamed "Operation Epic Fury." This war, already costing billions of dollars and causing tens of thousands of casualties, has no clear end; moreover, the parties involved are not very clear. The target area of ​​Iranian missiles extends beyond Israel to encompass all Gulf countries and even India, spreading in all directions. While it is strange that the Iranian regime – in its remaining parts – is simultaneously launching missiles at neighboring countries and offering official apologies, this is understandable given its "mosaic" tactic of a dispersed command system lacking central control. Despite the missiles being identified as originating from Iranian territory, the fact that the targeted countries haven't attributed responsibility to Iran and are classifying it as a "false flag" operation seems to stem from the fact that in our world of deception, people believe in reason rather than sight. No one can easily deceive anyone else; perhaps everyone believes what suits their own interests.

All wars end; especially if there's no way to advance by land, they don't even last long. The number of missiles and drones is limited, and the inventory has an end. Of course, this is unless the war is being waged by proxy by other dominant powers. Because this war is a global clash at the regional level, there's a risk of collapsing the system. Iran's strategy for managing the war is based on creating a global shockwave that will affect the entire world, putting immense international pressure on the US and Israel. In the information war, a massive blackout is in place. While the war rages on, we don't know who's dead and who's alive. What we know is this: the US is searching for a narrative of victory to justify its withdrawal from the war, and, as Sun Tzu put it, they need a "golden bridge built for their rapid retreat." The US will soon return to its own world. Let's hope that Israel, left behind in this region, has now realized that if it wants to survive, it must develop peace strategies, not war tactics.