In an editorial, The New York Times argued that President Donald Trump lost the war with Iran. While the newspaper welcomed the broad framework of the agreement reached between Washington and Tehran, it said the outcome exposed several uncomfortable realities.
Foremost among them was what it described as Trump’s grave mistake in launching the war recklessly and in open defiance of the law. According to the editorial, the United States emerged from the conflict militarily, diplomatically, and economically weaker, and will continue paying the strategic cost for years to come.
Although the details of the agreement remain unclear, the framework announced publicly suggests that Trump secured some of the conditions he had insisted upon. Yet, the paper argued, the outcome ultimately represents a defeat for both Trump and the nation he leads.
Unfulfilled Promises
At the beginning of the war, Trump declared that the United States would achieve a “total and complete victory” and demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender”. He also hinted at the possibility of regime change.
Trump insisted that Iran would not be allowed to enrich uranium and claimed that “the United States, working together with Iran, will extract and remove all deeply buried semi enriched nuclear material” already possessed by Tehran.
According to the newspaper, none of these claims appear to have materialised.
Iran’s hardline government remains in power, and while the finer details of the nuclear agreement are expected to be negotiated over the next two months, the deal is likely to resemble the 2015 agreement negotiated by former President Barack Obama and abandoned by Trump in 2018.
Trump had repeatedly condemned Obama’s agreement as “the worst deal in history”, claiming it placed Iran on “a path to a nuclear weapon”. He criticised Obama for failing to force Iran to end its support for armed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while also easing economic sanctions.
Yet despite launching a devastating war, Trump now appears likely to end up with a deal that closely resembles the one he once denounced.
Strait of Hormuz Reopened, But at What Cost?
The newspaper argued that Trump’s most significant achievement under the ceasefire arrangement was the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping.
However, it said this was hardly a victory, as it merely restored the situation that existed before the war.
Iran had closed the waterway in retaliation, aiming to damage the global economy and increase political pressure on Washington. According to the editorial, the strategy worked, and Iranian leaders now understand that they possess a powerful economic weapon.
Iran’s Strategic Gains
The paper argued that Iran emerged as the strategic winner of the four month war.
It acknowledged that Iran suffered severe losses, including much of its naval and air forces, significant military industrial capabilities, and parts of its political leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Nevertheless, with the war now over, Tehran has the opportunity to rebuild.
By contrast, the United States appears weaker in the eyes of the world.
The editorial argued that the American military failed to defeat a much smaller adversary, despite expending large numbers of long range precision missiles and interceptor aircraft. This outcome, it said, weakens America’s ability to deter other potential rivals.
To repair the damage, the United States would need to rebuild alliances across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, all of which have been strained by the military and economic consequences of the war.
The Pentagon would also need to modernise and prepare for future conflicts.
However, the newspaper expressed doubt that either of these goals would be achieved during Trump’s presidency.
Iran Before the War
Before the joint American and Israeli assault began on 28 February, Iran’s leadership had already endured two and a half difficult years.
The government was considerably weaker than it had been before the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.
Following that attack, Israel significantly reduced the influence of Hamas and Hezbollah. In Syria, a brutal dictator backed by Iran was overthrown, while Tehran’s leadership made little effort to save him.
Israel and the United States also exposed the weaknesses of Iran’s air defence and missile systems during strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last summer, disrupting parts of the country’s nuclear programme.
Meanwhile, Iran’s currency continued to decline and its economy deteriorated further.
Since late last year, Iranians have taken to the streets in protest, and the government responded by killing thousands of demonstrators, if not tens of thousands.
A Stronger Position Despite Weakness
The newspaper argued that Iran remains weaker than it was three years ago.
However, the war granted Tehran leverage it did not possess at the beginning of 2026.
The Iranian government demonstrated its ability to withstand repeated waves of attacks from its two principal adversaries.
Its leaders were not forced to abandon their nuclear ambitions, and they also observed that the rest of the world appeared unwilling to use military force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
The editorial posed a question: if Iran decides to close the strait again months or years from now, what will Trump do in response?
A Contradictory Assessment
Despite presenting these conclusions, the newspaper maintained its criticism of the Iranian government.
It described Iran as an oppressive state that suppresses political opponents, women, LGBT communities, and religious minorities.
The editorial further accused Tehran of leading the world in torture and executions, sponsoring terrorism both regionally and internationally, and impoverishing a country whose per capita income was above the global average until the 1970s.
Trump’s Miscalculations
According to the newspaper, the nature of the Iranian government should have encouraged Washington to think carefully and plan cautiously before entering a war.
Instead, it argued, modern American military history, particularly in Iran’s region, is filled with examples of arrogance leading to defeat.
Trump, the paper said, ignored careful planning at every stage.
He embraced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s optimistic assessment that the Iranian government would collapse quickly.
At the same time, he dismissed the warnings of advisers who regarded Netanyahu’s expectations as unrealistic.
The editorial also accused Trump of ignoring the US Constitution by refusing to seek congressional approval for the war, and of disregarding European and Asian allies who opposed the conflict.
He failed to prepare for Iran’s clear ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and issued threats to destroy Iranian civilisation, rhetoric that the newspaper said only undermined America’s moral standing.
Because of these mistakes, the editorial concluded, Trump has now accepted a peace framework that much of the world views as a defeat for him and a setback for the United States itself.
