The Washington Post published an analysis by Fred Zakaria examining President Donald Trump’s justification of the war on Iran, delivered in a 19-minute address aimed at persuading the American public of its effectiveness. Zakaria argues that the clearest outcome so far has been the strengthening of hardline Iranian leadership, the closure of a vital maritime route, and a significant boost to Russia’s economic position amid its ongoing war in Ukraine.
As the conflict enters its second month, Zakaria frames the need to assess outcomes against the pre-war baseline. Before the outbreak of hostilities in late February, Iran’s strategic position had already been severely weakened. In June of the previous year, US and Israeli airstrikes reportedly inflicted extensive damage on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, described by Trump as a “total and complete destruction” following a 12-day bombing campaign using stealth bombers and bunker-buster munitions.
Pre-War Weakness and Strategic Opportunity
Israeli military leadership echoed these claims, asserting that Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes had been set back by years. Israeli atomic authorities further stated that this advantage could be sustained indefinitely, provided Iran remained cut off from nuclear materials.
Additional Israeli operations in 2024 had already degraded Iran’s military capacity, including targeted assassinations of senior Revolutionary Guard figures, destruction of air defence systems, and strikes on ballistic missile sites. Simultaneously, intensified attacks on Hezbollah, Iran’s most significant regional ally, reportedly crippled its operational strength. According to Zakaria, Iran entered the war in a severely weakened military and economic state, burdened by sanctions and internal corruption.
Despite this, US political and media narratives continued to frame Iran as a major regional threat, including to the United States itself, despite the geographical distance of approximately 6,000 miles. Trump acknowledged this indirectly, stating that the US presence was not out of necessity, but to support its allies, many of whom were neither consulted nor supportive of the war.
Zakaria further notes reports suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persuaded Trump to initiate the war not due to an imminent threat, but because Iran’s weakened condition presented a strategic opportunity to pursue regime change. This aligns with early messaging from both Trump and Netanyahu, which explicitly called on the Iranian population to rise against their government.
Strategic Outcomes Fall Short
Despite the scale of destruction inflicted on Iran and the already weakened state of its military, Zakaria argues that the war has delivered minimal strategic gains. The Iranian regime has not collapsed, and leadership changes have arguably worsened the situation. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, aged 86 and known for prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons, was killed and replaced by his son, who is reportedly more hardline.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, historically the most hardline faction within Iran’s power structure, appears to be gaining influence, a predictable development during wartime. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz, which had remained open despite decades of tension, is now effectively closed under the new leadership, contradicting Trump’s characterisation of the situation as being under control.
Trump has suggested that additional airstrikes would naturally lead to the reopening of the Strait, assuming Iran’s economic need to export oil would force compliance. Zakaria challenges this interpretation, noting that the Strait is not entirely closed but selectively open to Iranian oil exports, particularly to China.
Economic and Geopolitical Consequences
The economic outcome has further complicated the strategic picture. Iran is now reportedly earning double its previous daily oil revenues, benefiting from increased prices and continued exports. Additionally, by imposing transit fees estimated at $2 million per oil tanker, Tehran stands to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional monthly revenue, providing resources to rebuild its military capabilities.
For US allies in the Gulf, the war has created a far more unstable environment. Their economic models rely on regional stability and integration, both of which are now under threat. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had previously normalised relations with Iran in 2023 as part of a broader strategy to stabilise the region and enable economic transformation. That progress now faces reversal.
Russia emerges as a primary beneficiary, gaining billions in monthly revenue from rising energy prices while simultaneously experiencing reduced pressure from US sanctions. Ukraine, on the other hand, suffers as military resources are diverted away from its battlefield. Europe faces rising energy costs, while also confronting pressure from Trump to support the war effort, despite NATO’s historical position as a defensive alliance.
China also stands to benefit, as US strategic focus shifts away from Asia. Beijing’s substantial investments in green technology shield it from many of the war’s economic consequences, while positioning itself globally as a more stable and less disruptive superpower.
A War of High Cost and Limited Return
Zakaria concludes that while the long-term trajectory remains uncertain, the current balance of outcomes raises serious questions. The war has imposed significant geopolitical, economic, and strategic costs, while delivering limited tangible gains. He poses a critical question: has any US military action incurred such high costs for such marginal returns?
