In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, The New York Times raised a pressing question: Who, if anyone, actually won this war? The short but explosive conflict prompted widespread speculation about the real gains of each actor—America, Israel, and Iran—and the strategic narratives now being constructed.
According to correspondent Farnaz Fassihi, each of the three players is now framing a narrative of victory.
- Iran’s symbolic missile strike on U.S. bases was presented as justified retaliation.
- America claimed it degraded Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
- Israel could claim it weakened a regional adversary.
This mutual “victory” narrative, however, masks a more complicated reality.
Iran’s Strategic Restraint and Need to Save Face
Behind the scenes, Iranian leadership had already begun searching for a diplomatic exit, even before launching missiles. On Monday morning, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council held an emergency meeting to discuss how to respond to the devastating U.S. airstrikes on three nuclear facilities—part of a broader series of Israeli attacks that had damaged Iran’s military command and infrastructure.
According to four Iranian officials cited anonymously, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei personally ordered a retaliatory response—but emphasised limiting the scale to avoid a full-scale war with the United States.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) eventually selected Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar as the target:
- It is the largest U.S. military base in the region, and may have hosted the B-2 bombers that struck Iran.
- Qatar is a close regional ally of Iran, and Tehran believed any resulting damage would be strategically manageable.
A Calculated Strike with a Clear Message
Hours before the missiles were launched, Iran quietly alerted intermediaries—including Qatar and other regional actors—that the strike was imminent. Qatar closed its airspace, and the U.S. was reportedly warned.
Iran presented the missile barrage as the price for U.S. aggression, rallying its public around themes of resistance and sovereignty. State television aired images of ballistic missiles lighting up the Qatari sky, accompanied by nationalistic music and rhetoric declaring the “end of the era of impunity.”
Behind Closed Doors: Hoping for De-escalation
Privately, Iranian leaders hoped that their calibrated retaliation—inflicting minimal damage and causing no U.S. casualties—would encourage Trump to de-escalate, allowing Iran to do the same.
They also hoped the U.S. would pressure Israel to halt its ongoing air raids, which had continued even after the American strikes. According to Tehran residents, the bombing in Iran’s capital persisted into Monday night.
Iranian officials insisted that the missile strikes were designed to avoid fatalities, fearing that even a single American death could trigger a devastating U.S. response.
Their strategy appears to have worked. Trump later confirmed that 13 out of 14 Iranian missiles were intercepted, and no American casualties occurred. He publicly thanked Iran for its prior warning, stating:
“They destroyed everything, and hopefully this marks the end of hostility.”
Shortly after, Trump declared a ceasefire between Iran and Israel was imminent. Both countries later confirmed an agreement.
Narrative Victories on All Sides
According to Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group:
“The U.S. can say it disrupted Iran’s nuclear program. Israel can say it damaged a regional threat. And Iran can say it withstood pressure from the most powerful military forces on earth.”
Yet, beneath these claims lies a deeper reality: the conflict escalated rapidly, breaking long-standing red lines, and exposed Iran’s desire to avoid prolonged war.
Domestic Fallout Inside Iran
While Iranians rallied around the flag, many also fled cities like Tehran, as airstrikes rocked the capital. Businesses shut down, public offices closed, and the economic toll deepened.
Taxi drivers, labourers, and working-class citizens voiced fears they couldn’t withstand another week of conflict.
Sadegh Nowrouzi, head of the National Development Party in Tehran, summed up public exhaustion:
“Our country cannot sustain this war. We face severe economic hardship, lack popular support, and do not have the military and technological capacity of Israel or America.”
Even some figures within the IRGC-affiliated circles began calling for restraint. Political analyst Karim Jafari, known for ties to the IRGC, urged Iran to refocus on its conflict with Israel, rather than being drawn into a wider war with Washington.
“The last thing Iran needs is a multi-front war without weighing its consequences.”
What Comes Next?
Although Iran’s strike was deliberately limited, the broader conflict is far from resolved. Western officials admit they do not know the status of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile post-strike. Questions remain:
- Does Iran still have the capacity to enrich uranium at higher levels?
- Will it shift toward covert nuclear activity?
- Or will it now pursue negotiations to lift crippling sanctions?
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has already begun a diplomatic tour, visiting Turkey, Russia, and Turkmenistan.
In a post-strike interview, Araghchi told Iranian media:
“Yes, we suffered damage—but the enemy failed to reach its ultimate goal of dismantling our capabilities.”
Conclusion: A Pause, Not a Peace
While all sides have spun victory narratives, the underlying tensions remain unresolved. The Middle East is not at peace—it’s simply in a temporary lull. The fundamental issues—Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s aggression, U.S. militarism, and regional instability—have not been addressed.
The next phase could arrive through diplomacy—or through another sudden escalation.
