With the temporary halt in the joint US Israeli war against Iran, the question of victory and defeat has become a central point of debate across mainstream media, social platforms, and political discourse.
Iranian officials, along with figures aligned with the administration of Donald Trump, have each declared victory. The United Arab Emirates has also claimed success, despite maintaining a defensive posture and not engaging in direct offensive operations.
Determining the true victor, however, is far more complex than it appears.
The Changing Nature of Victory in Modern Warfare
Modern warfare presents a structural challenge for analysts and historians attempting to define clear winners and losers. Unlike traditional conflicts, where battlefield dominance could be directly translated into political success, contemporary wars often produce ambiguous outcomes.
In the post World War II global order, particularly within Western liberal democracies built around concepts such as human rights and international law, the criteria for victory have evolved. This shift gave rise to the concept of winning “hearts and minds”, first evident during the Vietnam War and later more pronounced in conflicts such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars following the events of 11 September.
At the same time, perceptions of victory are now heavily shaped by propaganda, declining objectivity, and the complexity of asymmetric warfare. These dynamics allow all parties to claim success. In democratic systems, such claims can influence electoral outcomes, while in authoritarian systems, they help sustain legitimacy and public support.
Asymmetric warfare further complicates this framework, enabling weaker actors to declare victory if they avoid collapse and maintain ideological resistance. Typically, the weaker side views the conflict as existential, while the stronger party pursues political objectives, creating an imbalance in tolerance for losses.
From Military Success to Political Failure
In modern conflicts, military success does not necessarily translate into political victory. The Vietnam War remains a defining example. Despite battlefield advantages, the United States ultimately faced political defeat, as the Tet Offensive and subsequent escalation fuelled recruitment for opposition forces and intensified anti war movements domestically and globally.
This pattern is even more evident in ongoing or prolonged conflicts. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which initially appeared as a decisive victory with the removal of Saddam Hussein, later evolved into a strategic failure, ultimately expanding Iran’s influence in the region.
Similarly, the apparent US victory in Afghanistan in 2001, marked by the removal of Taliban rule, transformed into a long term strategic defeat over the following two decades.
Tactical Gains, Strategic Stalemate
Within the current conflict, both the United States and Israel have achieved measurable tactical gains. These include the targeted killing of numerous Iranian military and political figures, as well as extensive damage to national infrastructure.
However, Iran has continued to launch counterattacks against Israel and Gulf states hosting US military presence, sustaining operational pressure despite these losses.
Both sides have claimed victory, capitalising on the absence of a clear framework for evaluating outcomes in modern warfare. The United States and Israel have pointed to the destruction inflicted on Iranian institutions, missile capabilities, and nuclear sites. In contrast, Iran has emphasised the continuity of its political system, the resilience of its command and control structures, and its strengthened position over the Strait of Hormuz.
In practical terms, both sides possess grounds to promote narratives of success to their domestic audiences. Tactical victories have been achieved on both sides, although they are more pronounced on the US Israeli side.
Failed Political Objectives
Despite these tactical gains, the broader political outcome does not favour the United States and Israel. None of the primary political objectives of the war have been achieved. These included regime change in Iran, triggering a popular uprising, encouraging Kurdish armed groups to revolt, and dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.
Instead, Iran successfully redirected the conflict towards control over maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz. By leveraging its influence over this critical passage, a strategy that imposed significant global economic pressure, Iran strengthened its negotiating position.
Iran subsequently entered negotiations in Pakistan with a ten-point proposal aimed at consolidating its control over the strait, preserving its nuclear programme, and extending the ceasefire to include Lebanon. While the Trump administration initially appeared open to using this framework as a basis for negotiations, it later withdrew, amid disputes over the content of the proposal. Conflicting claims from both sides regarding the terms led to the collapse of talks in Islamabad.
Global Perception and Strategic Loss
At the international level, both the United States and Israel have experienced reputational decline. Even close allies declined to participate in the war, citing concerns over its legality under international law.
As the world’s most powerful liberal democracy, the United States has lost ground in the battle for global public opinion. According to United Nations experts, the war was characterised by unlawful conduct, including strikes on civilian targets such as a girls’ school, resulting in the deaths of dozens of children, the assassination of a recognised political leader of a sovereign state, and threats that were perceived as targeting an entire civilisation.
Iran, however, has also incurred political costs. Its targeting of civilian infrastructure across Gulf states, including oil facilities and power stations, heightened regional tensions. These actions risk pushing Gulf countries closer to the US Israeli axis, complicating Tehran’s ability to restore diplomatic relations in the future.
Conclusion
It remains premature to identify winners and losers in this conflict definitively. However, within the framework of modern warfare, a clear distinction can be drawn. The United States and Israel have secured tactical military gains, yet they are losing the broader political and strategic battle.
