Both sides claim victory, but the US-Iran war left each with as much lost as gained

US weakened Iran's military but validated Tehran's Strait of Hormuz leverage; Iran showed resilience but alienated neighbors and the international community; final verdict awaits nuclear talks and a reshaping of Middle East security

Ships pass through the Strait of Hormuz off Musandam, Oman, photographed by drone on Sunday. [Reuters]

With the US and Iran reaching a ceasefire agreement Sunday (US time), effectively ending a war that lasted 106 days, attention is turning to what each side gained and lost. Both claim victory, but analysts say each country may have given up as much as — or more than — it won.

Security gains on nuclear front, but regime change out of reach

US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington on June 3. [AFP]

For Donald Trump, the war reinforced his resolve not to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran — a message he had already begun sending last year when US airstrikes set back Tehran's nuclear program.

Whether the denuclearization deal he now seeks will surpass the agreement reached under the Barack Obama administration — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Trump himself abandoned — remains to be seen, and most analysts say it is too early to judge. Even so, if Trump's stated terms hold — the destruction of Iran's 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and a 15- to 20-year halt on uranium enrichment — Washington would have grounds to call the outcome a genuine security achievement.

Alongside this, some say the substantial destruction of Iranian naval vessels and the broader degradation of Iran's conventional military capabilities contributed meaningfully to the security of the US and its Middle East allies, particularly Israel. That assessment is also why some analysts describe Israel as the war's biggest winner.

Yet questions remain over whether a conflict that stretched more than 100 days — including the truce period — has left the US and its Gulf allies durably safer over the long term.

The fact that US forces launched decapitation strikes targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on the opening day of the war, Feb. 28, suggests Trump had regime change in mind as one of his core objectives from the start.

But Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the slain supreme leader, has assumed his father's position, and some observers say Iran's theocratic system appears not merely intact but hardened. The war removed the old leadership without producing the kind of genuine regime change that would have forced Iran to abandon its hostile policies toward the US and Israel. Some analysts go further, arguing the conflict amplified the voice of young hardliners rallied by nationalist sentiment while silencing the ordinary citizens who had long resisted the government.

Above all, the war's most significant cost for the US may be that it turned Iran's long-theorized "weaponization" of the Strait of Hormuz into a proven reality. By successfully holding the global economy hostage through the blockade, Iran managed to partially offset its overwhelming military disadvantage — a development that dealt a serious blow to Trump's hopes for a swift victory. The retaliatory strikes Iran launched against Gulf allies including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which host major US military installations, also created complications for Washington's alliance management across the region.

Hormuz leverage validated, but theocracy's long-term viability in doubt

Iran, for its part, can claim a measure of achievement in having withstood more than 100 days of sustained assault by the world's foremost military power and the Middle East's most capable regional force. The regime is also likely to view the demonstrated effectiveness of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic lever — a "harvest," in the eyes of hardliners, whose value is proportional to the disruption it caused the US and the international community.

Yet Iran's conduct during the war — striking neighboring Arab states including the UAE and Qatar under the pretext of retaliating against US bases on their soil, and blockading a waterway that carries roughly 20 percent of the world's energy shipments — could deepen its international isolation for years to come.

The regime will also need to reckon with a likely resurgence of domestic anti-government sentiment now that the war has ended — dissent that had been suppressed first through the violent crackdown on protesters and then under the banner of fighting external enemies.

The war has also raised pointed questions about whether Iran's theocratic government can sustain its course indefinitely — one that has forced ordinary Iranians to bear both the direct costs of war and the pain of international sanctions, while directing a substantial share of state resources to proxy forces: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

Analysts caution, however, that a final accounting of what each side truly gained or lost will only be possible once the nuclear negotiations conclude, the post-war realignment of Middle East security takes shape, and the evolving relationship between Iran's ruling establishment and its own people becomes clearer.

yckim6452@heraldcorp.com