Has the Iranian “Islamic Republic” succeeded in its conflict with the United States and Israel in imposing its conditions on them?

The victor in war is typically the side that succeeds in imposing its terms at the end. This was evident at the conclusion of World War II, when the United States and its European allies defeated Germany and Japan.

Both countries ultimately surrendered under conditions set by the United States and the Soviet Union, reflecting Moscow’s significant role in the defeat of Hitler’s armies.

The current conflict has not resulted in a victory for the Iranian “Islamic Republic” that would allow it to impose its conditions. What we are seeing instead is an attempt to avoid confronting the known and tangible consequences of a war that has yet to conclude.

The issue is that Tehran appears to be working to delay the obligations imposed by the conflict, in part by elevating the matter of the Strait of Hormuz. There is no doubt that any success in disrupting or closing the strait would have a significant global impact. However, the decisive factor may ultimately be the effects of a potential American blockade on Iranian ports in response to such actions.

Limited Iranian Success

The Iranian “Islamic Republic” cannot win the war it is currently fighting. At most, it can delay accepting the defeat it has already suffered. This does not preclude acknowledging that closing the Strait of Hormuz represents a limited Iranian success, given the global attention this development has drawn.

However, sooner or later, the underlying causes that led to the outbreak of the war will return to the political and military forefront. Quite simply, Iran will not be able to distract the world indefinitely from the issues that must ultimately be addressed.

This naturally begins with the Iranian nuclear file and the quantities of enriched uranium the “Islamic Republic” possesses, which could be used to produce a nuclear weapon. It must ultimately lead to discussions about the future of Iran’s ballistic missiles and their delivery systems, as well as the fate of the “Revolutionary Guard’s” arms in the region—particularly the future of “Hezbollah” in Lebanon.

The world—particularly the United States—cannot be distracted by the Strait of Hormuz or by the pressure tactics employed by the “Revolutionary Guard.” It cannot afford the emergence of an Iranian nuclear weapon, especially in the aftermath of the Gaza war and the “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack, which caught Israel by surprise on October 7, 2023.

Since that date, Israel has undergone a significant shift. The United States, too, has changed its approach, particularly in light of the perceived connection between “Hamas,” which carried out the “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack, and the “Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”

In clearer terms, there is no longer trust in Iran—or in those associated with it—following the “Al-Aqsa Flood.” For the United States and Israel, the attack on the settlements surrounding Gaza, along with the killings and hostage-taking that followed, is seen as proof that it is impossible to take any risk regarding the potential possession of nuclear weapons by the “Islamic Republic” in the future. 

Iranian threat to regional countries

How long can Iran continue to evade the challenges of war now that the conflict has reached its own territory? There is little room left for continued avoidance. This is not only due to American and Israeli factors—or the extent of Israeli influence in Washington—but also to Iran’s transformation into a perceived threat to countries across the region.

This is not entirely new; what is new is that Arab states have shed much of their previous hesitation on the issue. If there is a lesson to be drawn from the ongoing war, it is that the “Islamic Republic” appears to believe that its ability to harm Gulf states—particularly the United Arab Emirates—offers its most effective response to the pressures it faces. In this view, threatening the Gulf helps compensate for the leverage it has lost, especially in Syria.

What stands out is that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have, from the outset, worked to avoid war in order to preserve regional stability and protect their security environment. These countries have also sought to persuade the United States to steer clear of a new confrontation with the “Islamic Republic.”

However, it is evident that the Trump administration had its own strategic considerations, alongside Israeli assessments shaped by the view that Israel can no longer accept the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in the future, nor the continued development of its ballistic missile program. This also extends to concerns over the continued presence of Hezbollah’s arsenal in Lebanon, particularly its missiles and drones.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.