The Balance of Profit and Loss in the War on Iran

Although the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran is temporary, the war has effectively ended and will not resume after two weeks. The one who started this war and boasted about eliminating "Iranian civilization" from existence and returning Iran to the "Stone Age where it belongs" can no longer continue it. Time was pressing on the American president, and any additional day this war continued, which he could not resolve as quickly and easily as he expected, and the continued rise in oil derivatives prices and financial market turmoil within America, would most likely lead to a certain loss for his party in the upcoming midterm elections, which would hinder the remainder of his presidential term and weaken the chances of any Republican candidate winning the presidential elections in 2028.

Iran's endurance of an intense American-Israeli aerial bombardment campaign, despite its heavy human and material cost, and Iran's ability to transform the war, which was intended by America and Israel to be swift and clean, into a fierce, open, and escalating war that plunged the entire world into a severe and worsening crisis, forced the American president to exert the highest levels of pressure in search of a way out that would save face not only for himself but also for his country, which he embroiled in an intractable war. When he failed, and discovered the extent of the limited American ability to achieve the imagined victory, he was forced to agree to a temporary cessation of a war that would not be renewed, and to return to negotiations with an Iranian regime he had fought to overthrow, in exchange for a conditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was originally open before the outbreak of the war. No matter how Trump now tries to embellish the claim of achieving victory in a war he chose to fight, not out of necessity, on behalf of Israel at Netanyahu's instigation, the objective truth indicates that he suffered a clear loss, which will have negative repercussions not only on him but also on his country.

The American president humiliated himself with the outcome of a war he launched with exaggerated expectations that he could not achieve, and he shook America's standing with it. All the declared goals for which he fought this war were not resolved on the battlefield, and he must now negotiate with Iran over them. His mere acceptance of a ceasefire and going to the negotiating table not only represents an implicit acknowledgment of the failure of using force, which he primarily relied on to impose his terms on Iran, but also his willingness to make concessions to it in order to reach an agreement. Iran imposed on America, the global superpower, the necessity of accepting a return to the path of negotiation, a path based on the necessity of mutual concessions between the negotiating parties. As a result of this American-losing war, the relationship that Trump imagined to be a vertical power relationship with a regionally faltering Iran, meaning that America, with its surplus power, could impose Iran's compliance with its terms, was revealed to be, in fact, a horizontal power relationship between it and Iran, where Washington cannot achieve part of its demands except through peer-to-peer negotiation with Tehran.

And what future repercussions this revelation will have on America's position as a global superpower. By excessive arrogance, underestimation of others, and recklessness in decision-making, Trump, in his hasty war on Iran, revealed the hidden truth: the extent of the deterioration in America's global standing since the beginning of this millennium. This deterioration has escalated since then as a result of serious revisionist attempts by major and regional powers to weaken the superpower, escape the grip of the unipolar international system, and transform the international system into multipolarity. The successive steps taken by China in the past two decades to expand its regional hegemony, Russia's war on Ukraine, the expansion and movement of "BRICS" countries, the establishment of new economic frameworks and the development of new international financial systems, and Europe's belated awakening, are but examples of the continuous movement in indirect confrontations with America, aimed at undermining its position as a global superpower.

Suddenly, a direct confrontation emerges, not imposed on this superpower, but chosen by it, as an "exam" to show all the powers and revisionist movements trying to drain its standing that it still possesses a superior ability to repel its "aggressors" and maintains its full hegemony as a superpower. Trump chose war on Iran believing it would be an easy task, through which he would show the world that America is still in the lead and controls global events. But the outcome of this war shows that America, even with its excessive use of military force, was actually weak and unable to resolve the matter even with a regional power that it itself said was weak and had dilapidated power. This is certainly an indicator of weakness, and a signal that all other parties seeking to strengthen their international standing will pick up, and an open invitation for them not to hesitate from now on, but rather to intensify their future challenges to America, because the door has been revealed to be wide open for them. He who could not contain Iran will not be able to impose compliance on revisionist and other rising regional powers. Since the beginning of the third millennium, the international system has been undergoing a transformation. By observing the behavior of major powers, especially China and Russia, and rising regional powers, such as India, Iran, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and North Korea, it was clear that they were unwilling to tolerate the continuation of the unipolar international system, under which America sat at the top of the international hierarchy. But now, as a result of Washington's failure to resolve the war on Iran in its favor, the change in the international system's status has become inevitable and irreversible. It has become clear that America is suffering from an irreversible state of decline in its power and a retreat in its standing. This does not mean at all that it will not remain a superpower with its influence in the global balance of power, but it does mean that it is no longer able to impose its absolute will on the world, as it was before the exposure of the limitations of its power and its ability to impose compliance on Iran. One of the revealing pieces of evidence for this is that despite the weakness and collapse of the standing and capabilities of international institutions due to American targeting, especially the United Nations, Washington was unable to even obtain a Security Council resolution from them authorizing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by all means, but was met with a double veto from Russia and China, which deprived it of the cover of international legitimacy for continuing its war on Iran. In addition to Trump and America, Netanyahu and Israel are the second biggest losers of this war, which was launched under intense and continuous pressure from them. Aside from the systematic destruction campaign carried out by warplanes on Iran, which caused significant but repairable and compensable damage, all Israeli goals for this war were not achieved. Aside from the details, such as the Iranians not taking to the streets to overthrow the regime, the failure to incite the Kurds to declare war on Iran, the Iranian regime not falling after a series of assassinations of its political and military leaders, the elimination of Hezbollah's military capability, and the continued shelling of Israeli sites with Iranian missiles, the most important and largest Israeli goal of ending Iran's status and role as a rival and equal regional power to Israel was not achieved, but rather actually strengthened.

Iran will negotiate with America, and the humiliated Israel will be forced to swallow the consequences, and it will be forced to comply, and it will not be able to do anything but try to sugarcoat the bitterness with false claims of imagined achievements. Even by sheltering behind America and involving it in using its excessive military force, it could not achieve its goals, so how will it fare after losing this cover? Netanyahu's desperate attempt for two decades to eliminate Iran as a regional power has failed miserably. The war is now ending, and the Middle East that Netanyahu promised to change is not only remaining as it was, but has undergone a transformation in the opposite direction to Israel's interests. Netanyahu's boastful declaration that Israel had become a global power was nothing more than an illusory claim with no substance other than the continued guarantee of American protection. But this protection is no longer as it was before the two wars, on Gaza and Iran, guaranteed and assured without any accountability or questioning.

The objective result that Israel must confront is that its sequence of military failures, in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran, proves that its absolute reliance on its military capabilities, supported by America, cannot achieve the legitimacy of its existence. What can achieve that for it are two fundamental things: the necessity of ending the occupation and upholding the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, represented by freedom and independence, and ending its hostility and continuous attempts to dominate the region. As long as these two conditions are not met, Israel will continue to suffer disappointments.

As for the third loser in this war, it is the dilapidated Arab system, composed of regimes that agreed to mortgage their continued existence by subordinating themselves to others, specifically to America. During this war, the false situation of this system was exposed, and it collapsed with extreme speed and ease, due to the failure of those who were relied upon to defend it to carry out the task, which regularly costs the depletion of Arab resources. This system has lost huge material resources, but more importantly, it has lost stability and reputation, which will require a lot of resources and years to restore. And even with restoration, the result may be that the situation, especially regarding the moral standing of many countries, will not return to its previous state until after a long period. This war, and the Arab choices that permeated it, revealed a lack of self-confidence, which, even if not available, lessons are learned and work will be done in the future to build it. It is clear that dependency is a state of mind before it is determined by the availability of material capability. The Arab system, in its current state, has condemned itself to remain dependent; it sits on the sidelines of the ongoing conflict to determine the position of influential regional powers in the region. And the situation of this system will remain dependent and marginalized as long as the forces controlling political decision remain as they are currently.

In contrast to the losers, Iran emerges from this war as the biggest winner. Despite its heavy but compensable material losses, the country and the regime stood firm, fought a war efficiently and competently, and forced America to negotiate to end the war according to terms presented by Iran, in exchange for American demands. The cohesion and good performance of Iran during the war earned Iran a great actual and moral standing, making it a power that should be taken into account, not only regionally, but also on the general international level. Tehran will emerge from this war stronger in its regional standing than it was, having achieved a very important victory, directly for itself, and with indirect effects for many parties in the world as well.