A week has passed since Israel and the United States attacked Iran. As the opening move of the war, they struck a significant blow against the leadership of the Islamic Republic, including Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the successor of its founder Khomeini. Yet, as we have learned over the years, the fallen are quickly replaced by successors. Sometimes they struggle to fill the shoes of their predecessors, but at times they surpass them, as happened with Hassan Nasrallah the Hezbollah leader. Who remembers his predecessor, Abbas Musawi.

A leading candidate to lead Iran and the Shiite world (about 220 million people) is Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the Supreme Leader until a week ago. Did decision-makers in Israel and the United States take into account that the heir apparent may follow in his father’s stubborn and ruthless path? Did they consider that, in light of the bitter lessons of these days, he might use the enriched uranium that remains hidden by the Iranians and attempt to achieve the status of a nuclear power? What would then be the plan of Netanyahu and Trump — to eliminate once again what they already “eliminated,” according to their declarations eight months ago? Would the two dare attack a country that possesses a “second-strike capability,” the very capability that was the reason Israel became a nuclear state (according to foreign sources)?

From another perspective: if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, there is no doubt that other countries in the Middle East will enter the race. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are the main candidates. On this issue Amir Oren wrote in Haaretz: "It is easy to explain action against nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam, Assad, and Khamenei. It is much harder to justify opposition to the same nuclear capability in the hands of Erdoğan, Mohammed bin Salman, and al-Sisi…. Would Israel threaten and even attack Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates?".

We also learned after the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) that the Iranians are a determined enemy, who have room to breathe for a long time. They possess a history spanning thousands of years; they know how to suffer blows; they are experienced strategists and second to none in their scientific capabilities. They are responding to the current surprise attack — which in fact should not have been surprising — with patience. The limited number of missiles in their possession is being dripped slowly, not only toward Israel but also toward their neighbors in the Gulf, knowing that the longer the war lasts, the internal pressures in Israel, the United States, the Gulf monarchies, and European countries will begin to have an impact.

As the campaign accumulates days and weeks, and considering the resilience and survival capacity of the regime in Tehran, the exchange between missiles and aircraft may turn into a war of attrition. Then the political pendulum will swing against Israel, which will be held responsible for the outbreak of the conflict. Rising oil prices, damage to international trade, collapsing stock markets, and of course the physical damage and loss of income in the Gulf states — all these will play a significant role, leaving Israel isolated in a confrontation with a determined nation of 100 million people.

Moreover, Israel under the current Netanyahu government is not fit for a prolonged campaign. All its ministers are failing, and the governmental system lacks the capacity to function even in normal times, let alone in an emergency. Countries and companies around the world are not eager to cooperate with an occupying Israel that violates human rights and international law. Even Trump may distance himself from this troublesome ally in the Middle East once it becomes clear that the war is a burden and harms his popularity. It is also worth remembering that in three years he will be history, and Israel will face a Republican right wing that favors isolationism and Democrats who are already growing weary of us.

Wars should not be launched with the next elections in mind of their initiators. A preventive war against Iran may be justified and understandable, given that Tehran sponsors regional instability and global terrorism. The building of its long-range missile arsenal and the creation of a “ring of fire” around Israel were sufficient to convince the public to support the government’s decision to strike. Yet this is a government whose ministers are submissive yes-men to the man at its head, and Netanyahu has no interest other than his own personal good. He demonstrated this by cultivating Hamas, attacking Israel’s democratic values, bringing the Kahanists and messianic extremists into his government, and entrusting them with strategic ministries. The preventive strike would also have received support from countries around the world had Israel shown a genuine pursuit of peace — not only with the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, but also with its closest neighbors, the Palestinians.

Launching a war campaign without a political plan to end it in a settlement is bound to fail. Netanyahu’s government has neither presented nor discussed such a plan, deliberately, because it has no intention of reaching a peace solution. It prefers ethnic cleansing and annexation of the occupied west bank. Yet not all the cards are in its hands. If we assume that the optimistic scenario materializes and Iran and its allies fold their offensive flag, an opportunity may arise to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Removing the leaders of the Iranian axis — Khamenei, Nasrallah, and Sinwar — should only be the first stage. Even after crushing the “heads of the snake,” five million Palestinians living in the occupied territories, in the West Bank and Gaza, are still here. Despite Netanyahu’s chatter — without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem there will be no peace with Saudi Arabia, and the issue of the occupied territories will not disappear. On the contrary.

Therefore, instead of celebrating the  destruction of the Haman (the main villain in the Book of Esther who plotted to destroy the Jewish people in the Persian Empire) of the twenty-first century — festivities embraced by broad segments of the Israeli  public with the encouragement of ratings-hungry media as if there were no tomorrow — Israelis and their government must sober up and return to the foundations that once underpinned a possible settlement in the land between the sea and the Jordan River, a place where two peoples live, both entitled to self determination and security. Presenting such a plan, one that would receive international support, would bring the current war to a successful conclusion. A journey toward a worthy political settlement would likely win the support of the majority of the Israeli public. The success of such a move would bring security and prosperity and uproot the messianic and fascist extremists who have grown among us and have destroyed the democratic foundations built here.