Even after four weeks of war, the United States and the Israeli occupation have failed to achieve any of their declared objectives against Iran. These included forcing the Iranian leadership into submission, toppling the regime, halting its nuclear programme, stopping the development of medium and long range ballistic missiles, and ending support for regional allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq.
Instead, these allied forces remain active and effective, particularly Hezbollah, which entered the confrontation and succeeded in drawing the occupation into a broader war, easing pressure on Iran. The group inflicted notable military losses, including ambushes targeting Merkava tanks in southern Lebanon, alongside sustained missile strikes reaching northern occupied Palestine.
Military Performance and Strategic Impact
On the battlefield, Iran demonstrated its ability to penetrate advanced defence systems, including the Iron Dome and other sophisticated American made systems. Iranian missiles reached sensitive areas near the Dimona nuclear facility and caused significant destruction in Arad in the Negev, prompting strong reactions from Israeli leadership.
These developments exposed contradictions in previous claims by both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, who had earlier declared the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The recurrence of war within a year raises serious questions about the credibility of those claims.
Shifting Justifications for War
The current war was not primarily driven by Iran’s nuclear programme, as previously asserted. Instead, multiple justifications were introduced, ranging from alleged assassination attempts against Trump to claims of defending the Israeli occupation from existential threats.
This shifting narrative reflects a broader attempt to justify a conflict whose underlying motivations remain inconsistent and evolving.
A War of Survival for Netanyahu
The war is portrayed as existential for Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly framed it as a decisive battle for survival, similar to his rhetoric during the war on Gaza. However, despite claims that Iran’s missile capabilities had been neutralised, Iranian strikes continued to inflict significant damage.
Over 24 days of sustained resistance, Iran managed to target US bases in the region, strike deep into Tel Aviv, reach strategic nuclear and energy infrastructure, and reportedly damage the USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier. It also succeeded in downing advanced fighter jets, including F 16 models, albeit in limited numbers.
The Strait of Hormuz: A Strategic Turning Point
One of the most impactful developments has been Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20 percent of global oil and gas supplies pass.
While Iran stated that the strait remains open to international navigation, it clarified that access is permitted for allies and restricted for adversaries. This move triggered a growing global energy crisis, with rising fuel prices affecting even the United States, despite its status as the world’s leading oil producer.
The disruption has also impacted major industrial nations dependent on Gulf energy, including Japan, South Korea, India, and others, many of which have avoided direct involvement in the conflict.
Trump’s Evolving Position
Trump’s stance shifted repeatedly throughout the conflict. He moved from calls for regime change and expectations of internal uprising, to claims of military victory, to threats of targeting Iran’s vital infrastructure and even using weapons of mass destruction.
Subsequently, he issued ultimatums, extended deadlines, and ultimately pivoted toward negotiations through intermediaries, despite earlier claims that no Iranian leadership remained to engage with.
Return to Pre War Negotiations
The latest developments indicate a return to the original negotiation framework, particularly Iran’s agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons, which had already been under discussion prior to the war through mediation involving Omani Foreign Minister بدر البوسعيدي.
Statements from the Omani mediator challenged American narratives, confirming that Iran had shown willingness to agree, thereby exposing contradictions in the justification for war. The rejection of this agreement appears linked to opposition from Netanyahu and certain Gulf states, which had anticipated a rapid collapse of the Iranian system.
Toward a War of Negotiation
If intentions prove genuine, the conflict may shift from military confrontation to a battle of negotiations, narratives, and political framing. Iran is positioned as experienced in such diplomatic engagements, in contrast to figures like Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.
However, pressures remain from within the Israeli occupation and some Gulf actors who continue to view Iran as a strategic threat requiring further containment.
Uncertain Outlook
The situation remains volatile. Despite a declared truce, energy facilities in Isfahan and Khorramshahr were targeted, followed by Iranian retaliation. A suspicious explosion at the Valero refinery in Texas has raised speculation among observers regarding possible external involvement aimed at undermining diplomatic progress.
This raises the possibility of diverging paths, where the United States may step back while the Israeli occupation continues military actions, with Washington re entering the conflict if necessary.
An Unanswered Strategic Question
A key unresolved issue remains since the 2015 agreement: why Gulf states were excluded from the framework between Iran and the United States. Whether they will be included in any future agreement remains uncertain.
As it stands, these states risk remaining caught between two powers, potentially gaining little from diplomatic breakthroughs while bearing significant consequences from ongoing conflict.
