How Israel and the US are losing the broader battle against Iran

Feras Abu Helal

15 April 2026

Despite tactical victories, including a wave of assassinations of key Iranian leaders, they cannot translate battlefield momentum into a political win.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-israel-and-us-are-losing-broader-battle-against-iran

As the US-Israeli war on Iran has temporarily halted, the question of victory and defeat is fuelling debate across traditional and social media, as well as in political discourse.

Iranian politicians and figures within US President Donald Trump’s administration have claimed victory. The UAE, which was in a defensive position but did not conduct offensive operations, has also claimed victory.

So, who is really winning this war? This question is more complex than it appears.

Contemporary wars pose a major challenge to analysts and historians seeking to ascribe victory or defeat to any party. Unlike historical wars - where clear battlefield victories can be translated into political victories - contemporary wars often have ambiguous outcomes.

In the post-World World Two order, founded on a liberal democratic discourse about “human rights” and “international law”, the criteria for victory and defeat shifted. This complexity led to the emergence of the “winning hearts and minds” concept, first during the Vietnam War, and more clearly in the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

Perceptions of victory and defeat are now dominated by propaganda, subjectivity, and the notion of asymmetrical warfare. The ambiguity of results allows every side to claim victory; in democratic systems, this enables the ruling party to more effectively appeal to voters. In authoritarian states, claiming victory helps the regime retain popular support and legitimacy.

The notion of asymmetrical warfare also gives the weaker side, whether a country or a non-state organisation, the opportunity to claim victory if it manages to avoid collapse and keep its resistance ideology intact. The weaker side is usually willing to suffer more than the stronger one, viewing war as an existential threat.

From victory to defeat

In contemporary wars, a military victory does not always translate into a political victory. The Vietnam War is a clear example, as the victory of the US and its South Vietnamese allies in the Tet Offensive ultimately became a political defeat, helping the Viet Cong with recruitment efforts and fuelling the American anti-war movement.

The assessment of military or political victories is even more difficult when conflicts are ongoing. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, which was quickly labelled a military and political victory, soon turned out to be a defeat, handing Iran maximum leverage in the post-Saddam landscape.

The apparent US “victory” in Afghanistan in 2001, when the Americans toppled the Taliban regime, is an even clearer example of a temporary victory that turned into a total defeat within two decades.

Because it is an asymmetrical, ongoing conflict, it is particularly difficult to assess victory and defeat in the context of the Iran war. The US and Israel have had tactical wins, assassinating dozens of Iranian military and political leaders, and causing massive devastation to the country’s infrastructure. 

Yet up until the recent ceasefire, Iran continued striking back against Israel and the Gulf states hosting a US military presence.

Both sides have claimed victory, taking advantage of the subjectivity of this terminology in contemporary warfare. The Americans and Israelis have pointed to the massive damage inflicted on Iranian institutions, missile capabilities and nuclear sites. But Iran has pointed to the fact that its political system remains intact, along with its command-and-control capabilities, while it has deepened its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz.

Indeed, both sides have grounds and reasons to “sell” victory to their people, having each achieved certain tactical victories, particularly on the US-Israeli side.

Failed objectives

Assessing who has achieved a political victory, however, does not favour the US and Israel. The war’s political goals - forcing “regime change” in Iran, fuelling a popular uprising, encouraging armed Kurdish forces to surge against the state, and finishing off Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes - have all failed. 

Despite tactical wins, which were made possible by the huge gap in military capabilities, none of the political goals that drove the US and Israel to launch this war were achieved. Instead, Iran successfully shifted the conflict’s focus to securing free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

By using its ability to control movement through the strait, a strategy that has caused major global economic strain, Iran found itself in a stronger bargaining position. It headed to negotiations in Pakistan with a 10-point plan, which would have formalised its leverage over the strait, allowed its nuclear programme to continue, and extended the ceasefire to Lebanon.

The Trump administration initially seemed receptive to the plan, but later backed away from it, leading to a breakdown of talks in Islamabad.

In the meantime, the global reputations of Israel and the US have deteriorated; even close allies have refused to participate in the war, viewing it as illegal under international law. 

As the most powerful liberal democracy in the world, the US could thus lose the battle of “hearts and minds”, having launched a war that is unlawful, according to UN experts; attacked civilian targets, including a girl’s school, killing scores of children; assassinated the legitimate leader of a sovereign country; and threatened to annihilate an entire civilisation.

For Iran’s part, it has lost political points by attacking civilian targets across the Gulf, including oil facilities and power stations, leading to heightened tensions between Iran and its regional neighbours, who view these incidents as a threat to their national security. This could lead to the Gulf states doubling down on their ties with the US-Israeli axis, making it more difficult for Iran to repair relations in the future.

Overall, it is too early to confirm the winners and losers of this war. But given the characteristics of contemporary warfare, it is fair to suggest that the US and Israel have secured a tactical military victory, but are losing the broader political battle.