The deadly missile exchange between Iran and Israel—and to some extent, the U.S.— may have ended. Every party claims victory, and perhaps they should, for in truth, all are losers and all are winners. With no ground invasion, it’s easy to boast about destroying infrastructure or inflicting casualties—but these are hollow claims. The media, as always, amplifies propaganda, painting whatever picture each government desires. I, however, prefer to look beyond the headlines.
Israel initiated the conflict by attacking Iran during ongoing peace negotiations, killing its top leadership. Iran retaliated, sparking a long-range missile and air war—remarkable given the 2,300 km distance between the two nations. Israel sought full U.S. intervention, but Trump resisted, delaying and ultimately limiting the response. Only after Netanyahu’s pressure did the U.S. strike Iran’s key installations, allegedly uranium enrichment sites.
Nothing but destruction, lies, and human suffering were achieved. The war shattered illusions of invincibility: (a) Iran’s uranium enrichment program may be delayed, but Israel’s “Greater Israel” ambitions have suffered equally; (b) The conflict has reshaped geopolitics, paving the way for new alliances and power dynamics; (c) For Muslim nations, this marks a rare psychological victory against two non-Muslim allies, restoring dignity eroded since the Ottoman Empire’s collapse.
Netanyahu and Modi have damaged their nations’ confidence. Their aggressive posturing—once unchecked—has been deflated like air from a tire. Their hubris lies flat; rebuilding it will take time. How could their advisors and military leaders gamble with national security when alternatives existed? War should always be the last resort.
Say what you will, but Trump proved wiser than Pentagon hawks. His focus was trade, not war—even if his tactics often involved bullying (e.g., pressuring Zelensky). Still, his actions prevented two regional wars, and he dared to challenge Netanyahu—something no predecessor managed. He halted the Afghanistan war in his first term and de-escalated this crisis. If he claims credit, he’s not wrong.
We have arrived at an age where uncertainty reigns supreme—a time when even the most advanced algorithms and seasoned analysts fail to foresee what tomorrow may bring. The recent upheavals in global politics have exposed the limits of prediction: Iran’s unexpected retaliation, Trump’s abrupt strikes followed by de-escalation, and America’s unanticipated role as both instigator and peacemaker all defy conventional logic. The rules have changed. No longer can we rely on historical patterns or rational frameworks to anticipate events; our minds must now prepare for every possibility except the steady peace of past centuries. This is the paradox of our AI-driven era—a world where progress lurches forward in fits and starts, lurching unpredictably between escalation and détente, between chaos and fleeting stability. To navigate such turbulence, we must shed our illusions of control and embrace adaptability as the only constant. The future no longer unfolds—it erupts, twists, and veers into the unknown, leaving us no choice but to expect the unexpected.
