Nearly two weeks of open warfare between Israel and Iran with a brief but significant intervention by the United States seem to have come to an end. All three players involved, namely the US, Iran, and Israel, have declared total victory. This odd convergence of triumphant narratives, combined with the Trump administration’s clear reluctance to escalate into a full-scale regional conflict, offers a glimmer of cautious optimism. Both the limited scope of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear targets and Iran’s calculated missile response against US bases in Qatar suggest that neither Washington nor Tehran desires a wider war.
But Israel’s role in this equation remains the most ambiguous. Jerusalem failed to achieve its strategic objectives. The Islamic Republic remains standing, and Iran’s nuclear programme, while weakened, is far from destroyed. According to US intelligence assessments, the airstrikes may have only delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few months. Adding to the concern is the mystery surrounding the whereabouts of roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. Should Iran decide to refine it to weapons-grade levels (90%), it would possess enough fissile material for ten nuclear warheads. US Vice President JD Vance has already stated that the issue of the “missing uranium” will be a central point in future US-Iran negotiations.
A War of Attrition, Not Annihilation
The unprecedented, direct military clash between Israel and Iran marks a dramatic turning point in Middle Eastern affairs. Despite Israel’s initial display of military superiority, particularly its air dominance and surgical coordination between special forces and airstrikes, the long-term impact on the Islamic Republic is more psychological than structural. Tehran emerged battered but unbroken.
Reports suggest Israel’s initial wave of strikes inflicted substantial losses on Iran’s military leadership. As many as 30 high-ranking officers, including IRGC generals such as Mohammad Bagheri, Hossein Salami, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, were killed. These were not just military figures; they were public faces of the regime. Their deaths might cause ripples within Iranian society and raise serious concerns about the regime’s capacity for internal cohesion.
Despite these losses, the strikes were pointedly aimed at the IRGC and affiliated Basij paramilitaries. The conventional military (Artesh) was largely spared. It can be interpreted as a signal that Israel views it as a potential post-regime stabiliser. Still, Israel’s overwhelming control of the skies, in contrast to the near-absence of Iranian air defence or air force, generated early speculation about regime collapse, a narrative fuelled by the disappearance of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei from public view.
Khamenei’s absence, according to experts like Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute, was likely a strategic move. Rooted in Iran’s long-standing doctrine of “strategic uncertainty”, it allowed more pragmatic factions within the regime room to manoeuvre without exposing the ideological leadership to charges of weakness or retreat. This mirrors past episodes, Vatanka noted, such as the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, when hardline ideologues ceded ground to pragmatic voices to ensure the regime’s survival.
When Khamenei finally emerged, he proclaimed a resounding victory over both Israel and “the American regime”. Iran’s leadership, including General Abdolrahim Musawi, the newly appointed chief of staff, echoed this narrative. They emphasised the regime’s endurance and the symbolic importance of striking deep into Israeli territory, claiming to have destroyed critical military and research installations.
Iran’s Resilience and Israel’s Missed Objectives
If anything, the conflict reaffirmed Iran’s strategic posture as a long-distance runner rather than a sprinter. As Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins noted, Iran’s leadership is composed of veterans of the brutal eight-year war with Iraq. Their doctrine is not one of swift, decisive battles, but of attritional endurance. And once again, survival rather than outright victory has been enough.
According to sources cited by The New York Times, US airstrikes only managed to block access points to key underground nuclear facilities, rather than fully destroy them. Iran’s pre-emptive measures — relocating scientists, documents, and enriched uranium — proved to be a significant hedge. Even Rafael Grossi of the IAEA admitted that the vulnerability of Iranian centrifuges to vibrations likely caused serious damage, but not enough to cripple the programme long-term.
More importantly, Tehran gained a potent bargaining chip. The IAEA’s surveillance equipment in Isfahan is now offline. No one, except the Iranians of course, knows where the 400 kilograms of enriched uranium have gone. The leverage this affords Tehran in future negotiations with Washington is considerable. Ironically, the attacks may have strengthened Iran’s hand in diplomacy rather than weakened it.
A Regime Reinforced, Not Undermined
Though heavily criticised for its intelligence failures and the impotence of its air defences, the Islamic Republic has once again demonstrated its survival capabilities. For those inside Iran hoping for the regime’s collapse via external pressure, the conflict provided a sobering reality check: Israel lacks the capability, and the US lacks the will, to topple Tehran.
Furthermore, the much-feared joint Israeli-American invasion turned out to be far less devastating than imagined. The fact that Donald Trump, a man synonymous with “maximum pressure” on Iran during his first term, publicly criticised Israel for violating the ceasefire underscores a dramatic shift in American posture. Trump’s strong approach forced Netanyahu into a corner. Instead of drawing the US into war, the Israeli prime minister now faces pressure from his main political ally to stand down.
Moreover, Iran managed to strike Israeli targets. Despite losing many of its launchers to Israeli strikes, Tehran demonstrated that it could still reach deep into enemy territory. And while its missile barrage dwindled over time, so too did Israel’s capacity to intercept them. Reports suggest that Israeli stockpiles of interceptor missiles are now dangerously low. This is an operational vulnerability that cannot be ignored.
The Road Ahead
The war may have ended for now, but the strategic landscape has irrevocably shifted. Iran has emerged not victorious in the conventional sense, but emboldened and recalibrated. Israel remains powerful, but politically cornered and strategically adrift. And the US, despite its brief intervention, has shown once again that its appetite for another Middle Eastern war is low.
This round may be over, but the contest continues. And in this long war of wills, survival may be the most valuable currency of all.
