After forty days of bombardment by the world’s most powerful military, the assassination of its supreme leader, and the destruction of thousands of targets across its territory, the Islamic regime of Iran remains in place. The Trump administration is framing the ceasefire as a total victory. The problem is that winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. As things stand, this war is a loss for the United States.
The administration’s stated objectives shifted constantly throughout the conflict, from regime change to dismantling the nuclear program, to destroying missile production and to seizing oil resources. But the Venezuelan scenario, where a weakened leadership capitulated under pressure, failed to materialize.
Recommended Stories
Instead, Iran launched drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, at American bases across the Gulf, at U.S.-allied States, and disrupted the oil flow. Analysis suggests a ground operation to seize the islands controlling the Strait of Hormuz was militarily feasible, but it carried the risk of American casualties and a prolonged, open-ended engagement without a guarantee of beneficial results. By shutting down the strait, Tehran made the cost of continuation higher than ending it. At least in Trump’s perception. Iran comes out of this war with effective control over Hormuz, leverage it will carry into the negotiations and future confrontations.
What did the U.S. gain?
A weakened regime, certainly, and a further degraded proxy network that was already diminished before the start of this war. But the Islamic Republic has been weakened before. It survived an eight-year war with Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, devastated its economy, and left its military in ruins. It endured decades of sanctions designed to strangle its finances and isolate it from the international system. It absorbed the 2025 strikes that damaged its nuclear infrastructure and decapitated much of its proxy leadership. Each time, the regime came back. This is why the current U.S. campaign produces little lasting strategic value. As long as the regime remains standing, it counts as a win for Tehran. The Islamic Republic will rebuild over time and take this war as proof of its belief that the nuclear program is an existential necessity.
Washington’s willingness to settle for a ceasefire far short of its demands poses another problem. Namely, in what it signals to adversaries around the world. If a regime as battered as Iran’s can absorb the full weight of American air power, then other adversaries may feel encouraged to absorb the destruction, raise the cost of escalation beyond what Washington is prepared to accept, and survive.
READ MORE: Iran peace talks give JD Vance an opening in 2028 race
There are, of course, scenarios that could alter this trajectory. The Iranian people showed they are willing to die to bring this regime down, and that willingness has not disappeared. A failed round of talks could push Washington toward the bolder steps it avoided during the war itself, arming the opposition or committing forces to secure the strait. The regime’s own internal fractures, invisible now, may yet widen. But these remain, for the moment, unknowns.
What we know is that, regardless of how the White House packages this outcome, the regime survived America’s air arsenal, and as things stand, that is its victory, not America’s.
