The War That Turned the Tables

An Analysis of the Dimensions and Consequences of the Illegitimate US-Israel War Against Iran in Early 2026

(Part One)

 

Dr. Reza Gholami

Faculty Member, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies – Iran, Tehran

One. Roots of the Crisis: Why This War Was Inevitable?

The truth is that the war between the United States and Israel against Iran did not form overnight. This war is the product of a deep-rooted, multi-layered tension that goes back to the old project of American and Israeli domination over the region—for oil, Iran’s nuclear issue, the successful formation of the Axis of Resistance, and ideological conflicts rooted in justice and neo-colonialism. The danger of conflict was already embedded in the region’s structure and was not merely the result of a short-term action or decision.

However, what superficial analyses often overlook is this: the war cannot be reduced simply to Trump or Netanyahu. Attributing everything to the ignorance or madness of one individual is a kind of analytical reductionism that lowers everything to the level of personal actions instead of understanding the structural layers of power. Individuals, no matter how influential, act within a network of interests, institutions, ideologies, and power structures. What we face here is the manifestation of the will of a deep-rooted, multi-layered current in the structure of American power—a current that combines military-industrial complexes, political lobbies, geopolitical interests, and interpretations of the global order based on domination and superiority.

This domineering current is not limited to American geography; it has an institutionalized and networked presence in various parts of the world—including Europe, where some political, media, and even intellectual institutions act directly or indirectly in line with the same logic. In this framework, Iran is defined not as a “temporary issue” but as a “structural obstacle” to the projects of this current. Therefore, confrontation with Iran is part of a continuous and self-reproducing strategy that has persisted in different periods with different faces and discourses. The current war should be seen not as a war of individuals, but as a war of narratives, interests, and structures.

Domination Over the Region and Oil

Southwest Asia is the world’s most important center of oil and petrochemicals, and Iran, in addition to its excellent geopolitical position, possesses some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves. For 48 years, Iran has resisted American domination and that of its partners and has paid a heavy price for this resistance. In contrast, the Persian Gulf states, motivated by preserving their own security—which is a product of American fear-mongering—have sold their countries to the United States. Not only do they receive nothing, but every year—as Donald Trump has put it—they pay huge sums to Washington like “milking cows.”

Israel: Gendarme or Independent Player?

Although Europe and America have always sought to turn Israel into their gendarme in the region, Israel has additional motives for seizing control of the region. Israel is a radical Jewish government that firmly pursues the plan of domination “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” Israel was a supporter of the Pahlavi regime and created the notorious SAVAK (National Intelligence and Security Organization) for the deposed Shah. From the very beginning, the Islamic Revolution understood that Israel’s foundation was built on aggression and that its Nile-to-Euphrates plan has never been removed from the table of its rulers. Therefore, even if the Islamic Republic had not been a serious threat to Israel, Israel would still have seen Iran as a firm obstacle to its illegitimate ambitions and thus a threat.

The Nuclear File and the Collapse of the JCPOA

The Iranian nuclear file and the fate of the JCPOA should not be overlooked. Although the JCPOA was not very desirable for Iran, it accepted it in line with the conditions. The unexpected withdrawal of the Trump administration from this agreement is considered one of the key points in escalating the crisis. With this unreasonable action, Trump mined the path of diplomacy not only on the Iran issue but on all global issues. Despite its technical flaws, the JCPOA could have been beneficial for all parties in a hierarchy, but Trump withdrew from it under pressure from Israel, which has always opposed any relatively win-win compromise with Iran. The reality is that Iran has completely removed the building and use of nuclear weapons from its defensive doctrine. The West is unwilling to stop accusing Iran of building nuclear weapons in order to keep Iran constantly under pressure.

The Axis of Resistance and the Destruction of ISIS

Iran’s regional policies and the Axis of Resistance (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia fighting groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, along with Shia groups from other countries such as Afghanistan with Iran’s support), apart from ideological goals, have had a serious share in creating deterrence against the danger of terrorism. But to understand this share, one must ask how terrorism grew in the region and by whom.

ISIS—which reached the peak of its power in June 2014 by fully taking control of Mosul—was not a spontaneous phenomenon. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in the Obama administration, explicitly admitted America’s role in its formation. Joe Kent, former head of the US anti-terrorism section, also confessed that “the US government deliberately armed al-Qaeda and created ISIS in Syria just to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and protect Israel.” With this narrative, what Middle East Eye wrote becomes concrete: “When Trump labels Iran as the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, it is as if he is looking at himself in the mirror.”

It was in such a context that Iran and the Axis of Resistance, at a heavy human cost, removed the danger of ISIS from the head of the Middle East and even from the walls of Europe. ISIS, which was initially designed for Southwest Asia, had become a savage force that recruited European Muslims and carried out terrorist operations in European cities. Europe should forever feel indebted to Iran and the Axis of Resistance for ridding the continent of this evil—instead of placing them in the category of terrorist networks.

The October 7 Incident: Turning Point or Bed for Eliminating the Axis of Resistance?

The October 7 incident became an important turning point in escalating the regional crisis. This incident has not yet been properly decoded, and the possibility that it was designed by enemies of the Axis of Resistance cannot be ruled out. The author believes that, despite all the suffering of the people of Gaza and the transformation of this strip into a prison by Israel, October 7 was more like a collective suicide for Hamas and Gaza. Hamas had either miscalculated about Israel or did not have correct calculations about its own capacity.

After October 7, Israel changed its security doctrine toward the definitive elimination of threats—at any cost, meaning violating the principles of the human rights charter—and this doctrine led to shocking events in Gaza itself, the 90 percent destruction of it, and also painful events in southern Lebanon, including the killing of hundreds of innocent people and the assassination of Hezbollah commanders and its popular Secretary-General.

Even the October 7 affair did not remain limited to the area around the occupied territories and paved the way for widespread attacks on Yemen, which had risen in defense of Gaza. Although Israel’s unprecedented war crimes in Gaza and the killing of more than seventy thousand people in this region—more than sixty percent of whom were children and women—destroyed Israel’s reputation in the world forever, it is not clear in a cost-benefit calculation whether the October 7 operation—which was accompanied by errors such as attacking civilians—brought much benefit to the Palestinian people; rather, it paved the way for Israel for the major project of eliminating the Axis of Resistance and its head, namely Iran.

Two. Internal Contexts: From Social Divisions to Enemy Exploitation

Alongside external factors, Iran’s internal situation also has great importance in security calculations. The protests following the death of the late Mahsa Amini in 1401 (2022) marked the beginning of the worsening of Iran’s social situation. The twelve-day war in Khordad 1404 (June 2025) created a new opportunity for national solidarity, but this opportunity was not properly used. Economic pressures, continuous power outages, and the daily increase in the price of the dollar and euro prepared the ground for part of the people, especially the vulnerable classes, to reach a boiling point.

In security theories, internal cohesion is one of the pillars of national deterrence. If the enemy imagines that society is suffering from increasing divisions, it estimates the cost of war much lower than its real size. It should also be noted that the new generation in Iran thinks more globally, has different cultural and economic demands, and has moved further away from traditional political ideology. This reality does not necessarily mean that a system is on the path to collapse, but it indicates the complexity of a society that both needs a safe and unified homeland and fundamental reforms—something that the United States was unable to understand and mistakenly thought that protesting Iranians were willing to roll out a red carpet for foreigners in the name of change.

Protests in Dey 1404 and the Big Lie of the West

The protests took shape in the second decade of Dey 1404 (late December 2025–early January 2026). Until before January 18, the protests were peaceful and non-violent, but with foreign interventions and Israeli planning, on January 18 and 19 they turned into a painful scene of violence. Trump explicitly admitted to this intervention in a press conference on Farvardin 17, 1405 (April 6, 2026):

“We sent some weapons to a group, it was supposed to reach the people! Those we sent the weapons to said to themselves what a beautiful weapon, I’ll keep it for myself! They will pay a heavy price for this action!”

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, in a letter to the Security Council announced that the United States bears full responsibility for all damages and sufferings inflicted on civilians during the unrest in December 2025 and January 2026. A dirty fake news story was also spread by Israeli-American media: fabricated statistics of 30,000 to 60,000 deaths for which no document was ever provided. Trump used this same false statistic to justify attacks on non-military infrastructure. In reality, the Dey events left 3,176 deaths—many of whom were security forces.

It should be emphasized: one cannot deny the internal realities of the Dey protests by saying that the Dey protests were an Israeli coup. It is more accurate to say that Israel advanced its violent plan on the real social bed of the protests because the issue was not protest; the issue was turning people’s right to protest (according to the constitution) into violence by those who, with foreign support and guidance, entered the ranks of the protesters to commit crimes.

The Monarchist Current: Appearance and Reality

The share of the monarchist current’s operations—which was pursued with the centrality of the son of the deposed Shah—should not be denied. The majority of the Iranian people do not have a positive inclination toward the son of a king who has been living a luxurious life in America for 47 years with money looted by his father and mother. Beyond this, for the Iranian people, the entry of a dictatorial current into the country whose entire existence is shaped by tyranny mixed with foreignness and foreign-worship had no appeal; but with the equipping of this current by Israel and the backing of the Western media machine, they were able to create disturbances inside Iran with the help of their minority supporters or play the role of a fifth column for Israel, and outside Iran, with heavy propaganda against the Islamic Republic, to be effective.

Three. The Beginning of the War: From the Diplomacy Trap to the Assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader

Wars are usually not the result of a single factor but the product of a combination of geopolitical competition, political decisions, internal developments, and security miscalculations. The war that the Islamic Republic of Iran had correctly kept itself away from for years broke out for the second time in the middle of Iran-US negotiations. (Meaning the second negotiation after the 12-day war between Israel and America against Iran.) The fact that the United States twice in one year, while having made a firm decision to strike, launched a show negotiation, effectively destroyed the path of diplomacy in the world. Hells Ranger, an American journalist, wrote in a tweet: “All US negotiations with Iran have always been fake; American negotiators never negotiated in good faith”—a statement made not by a foreign critic but by an American citizen, which itself indicates the depth of the crisis of trust in Washington’s diplomacy.

At this stage, Iran could probably have prevented the war with only a few major actions: completely abandoning nuclear activities, destroying missile capabilities, abandoning the Axis of Resistance, opening the doors of oil and gas industries to America—as happened in Venezuela after the abduction of its president and the occupation of the national oil industry by foreigners—and secularizing the governance structure. But no one from an expert perspective can claim that the majority of the Iranian people were receptive to these surrender conditions. Finally, without any legitimate reason, the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Esfand 9, 1404 (February 28, 2026).

The Assassination of the Leader: A Calculation That Failed

The starting point of the war was the treacherous assassination of Iran’s legitimate and popular leader in their workplace. The assumption of the United States and Israel was that with the assassination of Iran’s powerful leader, the system would collapse in the shortest time. But their calculations were wrong. Although the martyrdom of Ayatollah Khamenei on Esfand 9, 1404 (February 28, 2026) was a great loss with irreparable consequences, within a few hours it became a factor of increasing cohesion among Iranians and exponentially increased the power of the Islamic Republic.

Europe, America, and the Israelis, despite the huge investments they have made over the past decades in Iranology, have never succeeded in understanding the deep layers of Iranian society. One of the elements they were unable to perceive correctly was the Iranian DNA and the Shia religious DNA, which when organically combined create a power outside the calculations of instrumental reason. In Shia culture, even martyrdom in the path of God is not defeat, but victory and new life.

Four. The Dynamics of the War: From the Strait of Hormuz to Cultural Barbarism

The Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s Nuclear Bomb

The central issue of this war that shifted the balance of power in favor of Iran was the smart and powerful control of the Strait of Hormuz. The Washington Times wrote that the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s “nuclear bomb”; this geographical lever acts as an “economic weapon” and can put pressure on the global economy without firing even one missile. Iran announced that ships and oil tankers of hostile countries and their supporters are not allowed to pass, and this decision created an unprecedented crisis in the global economy.

Even despite Trump’s repeated ultimatums to Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, Iran never gave in. Trump’s threat rhetoric in this period reached a level that surprised not only America’s allies but also many American citizens—and Iran’s field response to every ultimatum was always ready before the deadline ended. The peak of this confrontation occurred on Farvardin 18 and 19, 1405 (April 7-8, 2026), which will be examined in detail in part seven.

Simon Johnson, Nobel Prize winner in economics, called this event “Iran’s sanctioning of America.” The New York Times wrote that this war is turning Iran into a major global power: “In recent years, the global order was moving toward three poles—America, China, and Russia—but this assumption no longer holds. The fourth pole of global power is rapidly emerging: Iran.” Janice Stein, professor of international relations at the University of Toronto, also stated that Iran now controls 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas and liquids.

The Collapse of the Coalition: Europe in the Mirror of Reality

Trump tried with all his might to bring Western countries, NATO members, and some Asian countries into the war against Iran. Their response was all negative. But Europe tried to distance itself from the conflict while the secret aids of some of these countries did not remain hidden. The Wall Street Journal wrote:

“Even while many European leaders have politically distanced themselves from the war, they indirectly play a role in empowering America’s efforts. Spain is an exception, but Britain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and even France each play their share; they have allowed America to use their bases and military facilities for presence and operations in the Middle East.”

The rift that had emerged between America and the West since the Ukraine war turned into a deep and possibly permanent gap in this conflict. The Atlantic alliance order, as it had stood for decades, will no longer return in its previous form.

Now Europe is in an extremely critical situation, and behavioral and verbal evidence indicates their growing dissatisfaction and protest against Trump’s performance; a dissatisfaction that has not only been reflected in the tone of international media and newspapers but is also clearly visible in the explicit and sometimes critical statements of European country officials and European Union officials.

In such an atmosphere, it is important to recall that Iran had previously warned European leaders several times not to tie their national interests to US policies—especially during the presidency of Trump; a warning that now, with the clearer emergence of gaps and dissatisfactions in Europe, appears more meaningful than ever.

The Peak of the Threat: “Tonight Iranian Civilization Will Die”

On Farvardin 18, 1405 (April 7, 2026), Trump wrote on his Truth Social page that if the Islamic Republic of Iran stands by its position, “tonight probably a civilization will be destroyed and will never be revived.” Christiane Amanpour, former senior CNN reporter, wrote: “In all the years I reported on America’s wars, I have never heard a statement like this: an American president threatens to destroy an entire civilization.” Robin Monotti, a prominent French filmmaker, also wrote: “If you read between the lines of Trump’s writing, he is threatening a nuclear attack. This is the ultimate helplessness of a bully who has not achieved his wish.”

But in the face of this threat, the Iranian people gave a different response: hours before Trump’s deadline, brave Iranians formed human chains in power plants and important bridges. One of Iran’s prominent musicians, Ali Ghamsari, settled next to the Damavand power plant and played music there. This image was perhaps the most eloquent response of a nation to a superpower.

Joe Kent, a resigned US government official, also warned: “Trump thinks he is threatening Iran with destruction, but now it is America that is in danger. If he tries to uproot Iranian civilization, the United States will no longer be seen as a stabilizing force in the world, but as an agent of chaos—which effectively ends our position as the world’s greatest superpower.”

But Donald Trump’s tweet on Farvardin 16, 1405 (April 5, 2026)—written one day before that deadline night—showed how far the distance is between threat and capability:

“Tuesday in Iran is the day to hit the power plant(s) and bridge(s), all in one day. The scale of the attacks will be unprecedented. Open the damn strait, you crazy bastards, or you will live in hell—you will see! Subhanallah.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard response on the same night at the end of Trump’s insulting deadline was short and clear: it officially announced that refineries, power facilities, ports, and Haifa Gulf rails had been plowed with Iranian missiles in the past 24 hours and there was no news of missile interceptions. This confrontation can be summarized in one sentence: Trump threatened, Iran acted.

But beyond slogans and rhetoric, one should not pass lightly over the US threats. It is natural that America has unparalleled technical power for widespread bombing of all Iranian infrastructure, but apart from the criminal aspect, this action would not push back the Iranian people who had stationed themselves in the streets for their homeland but would further motivate them to continue resistance.

The Scale of Bombing and the List of War Crimes

By Farvardin 11, 1405 (March 31, 2026), statistics of 30,000 bombs and missiles fired by America and Israel against Iran were published; a figure that some military experts considered an unprecedented record in wars of the past half-century. In just the first four days, the volume of bombings was equal to the entire bombing period of the occupation of Iraq. But quantitative statistics are only part of the story; what was targeted gives a more complete picture of the nature of this war.

Also, after the ceasefire, Israel claimed that in this war, it alone, without America, dropped 18,000 bombs on Iran, all of which indicate the depth of the catastrophe.

The list of non-military targets of this war, each of which is a clear example of war crime in international humanitarian law, includes: hospitals and medical centers; pharmaceutical factories; elementary and secondary schools; Red Crescent bases; ambulances during relief operations; thousands of 100% residential houses in cities; vital bridges and passages; civilian airports; steel industries; petrochemical complexes; and parts of the country’s power grid.

The head of Iran’s Red Crescent Society, forty days after the war, said that more than 125,000 non-military units were damaged in the attacks of the Zionist regime and America. He added: of the damaged places, 23,500 units were related to commercial centers and people’s businesses. In these attacks, 339 medical centers including hospitals, pharmacies, laboratories, health centers, and emergency services were hit.

On Farvardin 23, 1405 (April 12, 2026), in a public report, the head of Iran’s Legal Medicine Organization said: during the war, the bodies of 3,375 martyrs were identified and identified by the country’s Legal Medicine Organization with scientific and specialized methods, of which 2,875 of the martyrs were male and 496 were female.

Erica Guevara Rosas from Amnesty International has stated that any attack that causes disproportionate harm to civilians, regardless of military justification, is illegal and an example of a war crime.

But among these, perhaps no symbol of this bitter war is more painful than targeting the Pasteur Institute of Iran. This center, with more than 70 years of activity, is not only one of the world’s top vaccine production centers but has provided a significant part of public health in Iran and the region over the past decades. Professor Iraj Sobhani, professor at the Paris Medical School, in an interview with the BBC called this attack a war crime and called on international courts to hold the aggressors accountable.

In addition, America and Israel targeted more than 120 valuable cultural heritage sites of Iran—an action that UNESCO considers a clear violation of international conventions. UNESCO has repeatedly emphasized that the cultural heritage of countries is the heritage of humanity and no military conflict can justify its destruction. Targeting these works—from museums and historical monuments to ancient sites—took the war from the military field to an area that has only one name: cultural barbarism.

In the press conference on Farvardin 17 (April 6, 2026), a reporter asked Trump: “In your opinion, isn’t hitting the infrastructure a kind of punishing the Iranian people for the actions of the Iranian regime?” Trump replied: “Yes, hitting power infrastructure and so on is painful but the Iranian people are willing to endure this pain at the cost of being freed. They beg us to bomb so they can be freed.” This claim is a big lie. No real Iranian even wants a single bullet to be fired at his people and national assets. It should be asked: in what part of modernity, freedom, and democracy have bombs, killing, and the destruction of vital infrastructure come?

Professor John Mearsheimer said: “If the Nuremberg courts were held where the Israelis and Americans were willing, Trump and Netanyahu and many of their advisors would be hanged.” The Atlantic also wrote: “The war with Iran was entering a completely predictable costly quagmire, but Trump entered this war again.”

Of course, the issue of crime against Iran is not limited to this forty-day war. As Senator John Fetterman put it: “If you want to talk about a war crime, Iran is a 47-year war crime.”

War in the Name of God: Christian Radicalism at the Head of Power

This war had another dark side. According to a report by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) in the US Army, more than 200 military personnel complained that some commanders portrayed this war as “part of God’s divine plan.” Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of War, with repeated emphasis that “God is with us,” was one of the most prominent representatives of this discourse. When war turns into God’s will, the possibility of ethical criticism of it disappears and political power sees itself exempt from accountability. This indicates the emergence of a new and very dangerous type of Christian radicalism that has sat at the head of power—a current in which white Christian identity is defined both as national identity and as divine identity. History has repeatedly shown what disasters such an ideology creates when combined with military power, from the Crusades to colonialism. Now for the first time this ideology has access to the largest military machine in human history.

Pope Leo XIV—although with delay but—took a clear position; this position, although it could have been done more decisively, was good in its place and showed that the Church is not satisfied with the conditions that the United States and Israel have created in the world and may, if this international crisis continues, express clearer opinions on the need to end this international chaos.

“Attacking non-military infrastructure is against international law. Threats against Iran are in no way acceptable. Reject war; especially a war that many have called unjust, a war that is constantly expanding and solves no problem.”

Of course, this was not the Pope’s only protest and in the following days the world leader of Catholics in another position said: “No reason can justify the shedding of innocent blood. God does not bless any military conflict. Whoever is a follower of Christ never stands with those who yesterday drew swords and today drop bombs.”

Also, in a special prayer ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica, and perhaps in response to Hegseth, the US Secretary of War who from the beginning of the war tried to link the war with its religious origin, he said: “They have fallen into the illusion of having absolute power. They even pollute the holy name of the God of life with discourses of death and nothingness.”

Attacking Universities: War Against Memory and the Future

If the military attacks of America and Israel can be interpreted within the logic of war—albeit criminal—one category of the targets of this war goes beyond any logic: attacking Iran’s scientific centers. Iran University of Science and Technology, Amirkabir University, Shahid Beheshti University, and most painfully, Sharif University of Technology were targeted. Dr. Vali Nasr, former advisor to Obama, considers Sharif University a symbol of Iran’s modernization and progress—a university that many experts describe in terms of educational quality and elite training as equivalent to MIT, and Maryam Mirzakhani, the first woman to win the Fields Medal in the history of mathematics, is one of its graduates.

Attacking these universities had a clear message: the goal is not only Iran’s military defeat but cutting the civilizational chain of this nation. Destroying the place where future generations of Iran are shaped can be nothing but the destruction of Iran itself. This is the aspect of the war that even some critics of the Iranian system were silenced and led to reflection.

Bombing the Synagogue: Israel Against Jews

And barbarism did not stop here. On Farvardin 18 (April 7, 2026), Israel bombed and destroyed the famous Rafi’nia Synagogue in Tehran. This event is itself an argument: Iran hosts the second largest Jewish community in West Asia, Jews have representatives in the Iranian government, and there is no apartheid or second-class citizen in this country. A regime that claims to defend Jews worldwide bombed a synagogue in the capital of a country where its Jews live with dignity. Siamak Moreh Sedgh, former head of the Tehran Jewish Association, expressed this contradiction clearly: “Zionists are by no means a religious group adhering to the beliefs of Prophet Moses; just as no connection can be established between ISIS and monotheistic religions.”

Pressure from Within: America Against Itself

Perhaps one of the strongest signs of the failure of this war came not from America’s enemies but from within the country itself. A Fox News poll—a network that is itself a supporter of Trump—showed that 64 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with his performance in this war. Yasmin Ansari, an Iranian-American member of Congress, described Trump as “disturbed and unbalanced” and called for the activation of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and his removal. The RT network also reported that America, due to damages to its bases from Iranian attacks, banned the publication of satellite images—an admission of a failure it did not want to accept.

In the large demonstration on Farvardin 8, 1405 (March 28, 2026), which is said to have been held with the presence of more than nine million people in various cities of the United States and was accompanied by the slogan “No King,” a significant part of the American people expressed their deep dissatisfaction with Donald Trump’s performance. These protests, especially focused on tension-creating foreign policies and the costly war that was started against Iran; a war whose economic consequences quickly became evident in the daily lives of American citizens. Rising prices, pressure on supply chains, and rising fuel costs made people feel these costs not at the level of political analyses but tangibly in stores and gas stations.

The slogan “No King” was also more than just a protest phrase; it carried a deep critique of the concentration of power and unilateral decision-making in the US political structure that has brought Trump close to the position of a dictator king. This demonstration in the middle of the US-Israel war against Iran is known as the largest one-day protest in American history.

Five. The Iranian People: Main Players in the Field; Prominent Role of the Axis of Resistance

The People: A Front the Enemy Did Not Know – “The Epic of Forty Nights”

The main player in this war was the Iranian people. What was seen from the Iranian people in these forty days is a phenomenon that can be called the “Epic of Forty Nights”—a concept to describe the active solidarity of ordinary people in an existential crisis, where the citizen turns into a soldier, the neighbor into a rescuer, and the artist into a trench.

The dimensions of this presence were unprecedented: more than forty nights of continuous presence of people in the streets of large cities to prevent the infiltration of traitorous terrorists; continuous morale-boosting for IRGC and army fighters behind missile launchers; setting aside many differences and unity around the axis of Iran; maximum accompaniment with system officials in managing the country; and during the bombing of residential areas, immediate help to the wounded and pulling people out from under the rubble—spontaneously, without command, out of affection.

The movement of the Iranian people in the eight-day interval between the martyrdom of the Revolution’s leader and the appointment of the new leader was more like a wonderful and rare event than a normal political process. In a situation where the country was temporarily deprived of the presence of the leader and commander-in-chief and the temporary leadership council also did not have a familiar and established position in public opinion, the people not only did not suffer from a vacuum and confusion but came to the scene by forming a new concept of “companion, co-traveler”; a concept in which society simultaneously opens the path and steps in it.

This event, from a sociological perspective, is an exceptional and rare phenomenon; a phenomenon whose deep understanding is not easily possible for many thinkers who are not familiar with the lived Iranian-Shia experience.

These days, more than twenty million people in Iran have only registered in the “Janfada” plan. This plan registers those who are willing, if necessary, to defend their homeland to the death against a ground attack by the United States and Israel.

Armed Forces: Asymmetric War, Symmetric Victory

This war was completely unequal in terms of military capacity and the amount of ammunition used, but Iran confronted it with asymmetric warfare style in such a way that no one imagined the IRGC and the Iranian army would fall short in striking enemy positions. They made the slogan derived from the principle of retribution—“eye for an eye”—a reality. All US bases in the Persian Gulf countries were destroyed to 80 percent or more. A significant part of the advanced facilities of the United Arab Emirates received fundamental blows. In Israel, the damage inflicted is beyond imagination—various reports show that parts of Tel Aviv have been leveled to the ground.

The Financial Times wrote: “Iran, despite damage to equipment and the martyrdom of senior commanders, has been able to preserve its effective defensive and missile capability. Iran is advancing its missile campaign in conditions that would normally disable the capability of any modern army.”

On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that any senior military expert would consider the aimless bombing of densely populated residential areas in the days before the ceasefire by the United States and Israel with the most advanced deadly weapons as an advanced and clever military action; because such behavior is not a sign of military skill but something that even many average armies in the world are capable of.

Anyway, this showed that the world’s largest army can be defeated against smart asymmetric warfare—especially when faced with the faith of a Muslim and Shia fighter that completely transforms the conditions of war.

The Pilot Rescue Operation or the Theft of Iranian Uranium: A Failure That Remained Hidden

One of the turning points of this war was the entry of American forces into Iranian soil. According to the IRGC report on Farvardin 18, 1405 (April 7, 2026), rescuing the pilot was merely a pretext and the main goal was to abduct enriched uranium from the nuclear facilities in Isfahan. The IRGC forces trapped them; the C-130 aircraft was hit and other equipment including American helicopters were deliberately bombed by the Americans themselves to prevent them from falling into Iranian hands. Trump probably intended, under the cover of rescuing the pilot, to announce victory by abducting Iran’s uranium stockpile and exit the war. But no result was achieved and a new failure was added to the previous ones.

After the Tabas incident during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, which led to his bitter defeat in the second-term election, this is the second disgraceful incident in which US special forces were forced to make a humiliating escape from Iranian soil and bomb their own equipment. Dan Caine, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, in describing this operation said: “Anyone in Iran who had a weapon was shooting at our helicopter.” In this confrontation, the Lur nomads of Iran—who are known in history for their bravery—made a memorable defense with their old weapons.

The Axis of Resistance: A Power the Enemy Thought Had Been Destroyed

Alongside the IRGC and the Iranian army, the prominent role of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen should be praised. After the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and dozens of senior Hezbollah commanders, the Israeli regime claimed that it had disabled this organization’s military capability. But Hezbollah in Lebanon, with unbelievable and increasing power, alongside the IRGC and the Iranian army, inflicted fundamental blows on Israel.

With the fatwa of Ayatollah Sistani, the great Shia authority in Iraq, for the defense of Iran, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq took a big and unique step by targeting American bases.

The Houthis in Yemen also, despite years of enduring Saudi bombings and its allies, were trigger-ready from the beginning of the war and even announced that they were ready to close the Bab el-Mandeb to curb American-Israeli savagery—an event that could have put the world economy in a double shock.

From the Illusion of Regime Change to the Reality of the Field; Why Did the US and Israel Project Fail?

Jeffrey Sachs said: “The world today is witnessing a war that stems not from necessity but from the combination of Israeli fascist propaganda and the psychological instability of American leaders. The illusion that assassination and bombing of infrastructure in Tehran would lead to spontaneous uprisings is the height of political stupidity and the collapse of discernment in the structure of US power.”

Before any analysis, one must ask from a higher perspective: which of the goals that America and Israel announced were achieved? Did the Iranian people fall for the big lie of 30,000 deaths? Never. Did the Iranian political system change? It did not. Was Iran’s missile capability destroyed? It was not. Was the Strait of Hormuz taken out of Iran’s control? It was not. Did Iran fall short in retaliation? Never. The answer to these questions formulates the decisive statement of Iran’s victory in this war.

Francis Fukuyama, the prominent political economy thinker, says: “The reality is that the United States has never been so isolated as it is today. Trump has claimed that America has never been as respected as it is today; and that too under his leadership. Of the many wrong things he has said during his career, this is one of the most ridiculous.”

Six. Consequences: Losers, Defeat, and the New Order

The Miserable Losers: Persian Gulf States

Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, after America and Israel, were among the biggest losers of this war. These countries were not only not protected by America but suffered heavy damages. Some of these damages—especially the stabilization of Iran’s permanent control over the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz—have a structural nature and will no longer be compensable. Glenn Diesen, professor of international relations, writing about these countries, said: “Being in the front line of a declining hegemon is a disaster, as Ukraine and Europe will realize at some point.”

China and Russia’s Veto: The End of Unilateral Hegemony

On Farvardin 18 (April 7, 2026), the government of Bahrain, which during the illegitimate US-Israel war against Iran had placed all its facilities at the service of the aggressors, presented a draft resolution against Iran to the Security Council. This anti-Iranian resolution was not approved due to the firm veto of China and Russia.

This veto followed three simultaneous logics: first, the logic of power competition—weakening the main rival, namely America, at a point where it had become vulnerable; second, the logic of regional stability—preventing the continuation of a tension that could further disrupt energy markets and vital trade routes; third, the logic of strategic alliance—firm support for a strategic partner that had stood against pressure. But beyond these three logics, the veto of China and Russia had a structural message: the world no longer recognizes America as the undisputed superpower.

For China and Russia, the post-war conditions are a golden opportunity. America, by exhausting its military, political, and economic capabilities in this futile adventure, has doubled the space for the development of their influence in the world. A declining hegemony that has trapped itself in the Strait of Hormuz quagmire was a gift that its rivals never expected.

The Arab World: Two Voices, One Lesson

The Arab world did not have a single voice in this matter—and this duality itself is a meaningful narrative. The body of Arab nations were pleased with Iran’s operations against Israel; these operations were a consolation in the face of the Gaza massacre and the killing of more than 70,000 Palestinians. They were also pleased with the destruction of American bases in the Persian Gulf countries, because these bases were not only a symbol of the humiliation of the Arab world but had turned their governments—by Trump’s own admission—into “milking cows” that America preferred Israel to in times of danger.

But Arab governments, due to Saudi authority and regional considerations, tried not to support Iran and were content with merely demanding an end to the war. This contradiction between the feelings of the nations and the behavior of the governments—which is repeated in every regional crisis—is itself one of the roots of the structural instability of the Arab world. The clear lesson of this war for Arabs is that reliance on America brings neither security nor dignity; Arabs would benefit more if they make friends with Iran than paying futile tributes to America.

Interestingly, the Sultanate of Oman surprised everyone: while Trump was threatening Iran, Oman issued a statement from its Ministry of Foreign Affairs announcing that it had reached an agreement with Iran on the rules for ship passage in the Strait of Hormuz. Accordingly, Oman is the first country to officially recognize Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz.

What is important is that in this war, Arab countries sacrificed themselves at the feet of Israel at America’s request and must compensate for the damages inflicted on themselves for years. Glenn Diesen has rightly warned that “being in the front line of a declining hegemon is a disaster”—a lesson that it is not clear whether the Persian Gulf states have learned despite paying the price.

The Impeachment Plan of Trump: The End of an Illusion

In the days before the ceasefire, Democratic representatives in the US House of Representatives also presented a plan to impeach the president with 13 articles on charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This plan accuses Trump of starting the war, assassination, war crimes, and violating international law. Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security advisor to America, in reaction to the ceasefire said: “At best, this is a disastrous situation for Washington.” Professor Timothy Snyder, history professor at the University of Toronto, said: “Trump has lost this war from every aspect; whether morally, legally, politically, economically, in position and credibility, or strategically.”

In addition, the US Senate also tried to limit the war powers of President Donald Trump. All of these indicate the spread of dissatisfactions in the United States with this unwise action of the US government.

Seven. The Fortieth Day: America’s Defeat and Iran’s Victory

Forty days after the start of the war, an event occurred that clarified the balance of power better than any analysis. America, which had entered the field announcing victory, now requested a ceasefire through Pakistani mediation. Iran, which was supposed to surrender in a few days, dictated its conditions. This moment should be read from two angles: what Trump told the world, and what Iran’s Supreme National Security Council told the Iranian people—two narratives that together reveal the distance between reality and propaganda.

On Farvardin 19, 1405 (April 8, 2026), Trump announced:

“Based on conversations I had with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir of Pakistan, and given their request that I stop the destructive force that was to be sent to Iran tonight, and conditional on the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend bombing Iran for two weeks. This will be a mutual ceasefire. The reason for this is that we have already fulfilled all our military objectives. We have received a 10-point proposal from Iran and believe that this proposal is a workable basis for negotiation.”

But the reality of what was behind this announcement was revealed the same day from the language of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. In a historic statement, the Council announced that the enemy has suffered an undeniable, historic, and crushing defeat. The Council explained that Iran had been responding negatively to America’s ceasefire requests for more than a month because from the beginning it had been decided that the war would continue until the goals were achieved. America had realized about ten days after the start of the war that it did not have the ability to win and was begging for a ceasefire through various channels.

Iran’s 10-point plan, which America accepted as the basis for negotiation, includes: guarantee of non-aggression; continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz; acceptance of enrichment; lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions; termination of all UN Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions; payment of compensation to Iran; withdrawal of US combat forces from the region; and stopping the war on all fronts including against Islamic Resistance in Lebanon. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Bagheri (Iraqi), in a statement emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz will remain under the coordination of the armed forces.

According to an Associated Press report, the two-week ceasefire plan includes permission for Iran and Oman to receive transit fees from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz—an income that Iran will use for its reconstruction.

The most important point of this agreement is the exclusion of the Zionist regime from it. The Zionists, who had started a joint attack with America, heard the news of the ceasefire with displeasure from America. Trump accepted that the attack on Lebanon also be stopped and imposed this on Tel Aviv—a blow with depth, because Israel had previously emphasized that after any ceasefire in Iran, Lebanon would not be included.

Robert Pape, senior professor at the University of Chicago, stated: “If this 10-point peace plan that Donald Trump has accepted as the basis for negotiations is correct, it can be considered a very major strategic defeat for America; the biggest failure since the Vietnam War. With the end of this war, the fourth center of global power has also emerged: Iran.” Trita Parsi, vice president of the Quincy Institute, also said: “Trump can continue his threats but these threats no longer have weight because the option of war with Iran was tested and failed.”

Although the 21-hour Iran-US negotiations in Pakistan ended without result due to America’s totalitarianism, Iran still has the upper hand.

The Key to the Strait of Hormuz Is in Iran’s Hands

One of the most meaningful post-ceasefire analyses came from Thierry Breton, former European Commissioner—someone who spoke not from a position of friendship with Iran but from the position of a European technocrat. Breton said frankly: “Like it or not, the key to the Strait of Hormuz has fallen into Iran’s hands.” He then explained the practical mechanism of this reality:

“The way the Strait of Hormuz toll system works is that shipping companies must send an email, provide complete cargo details, obtain a permit, and make payment before passing. Payment methods include yuan, rial, or even cryptocurrencies. About 132 million barrels of crude oil in the Persian Gulf have been stopped. This system allows Tehran to generate direct income; a supertanker with 3 million barrels must pay about 3 million dollars. Freedom of navigation is practically in Iran’s hands. Iran will probably demand the lifting of sanctions in the future and may raise the issue of demanding war reparations. Whether we want it or not, it is Iran that has the upper hand.”

This analysis from the language of a senior European official is perhaps the best summary of what happened in these forty days: Iran not only in the military field but also in the architecture of the global economy established a new position from which return is no longer possible for its enemies.

Violation of the Ceasefire: The Language That Villains Understand

Villainous forces that usually pay no attention to human dignity and ethics are often not loyal to their commitments. As historical experience shows, what happened on Farvardin 19 (April 8, 2026), the day after the acceptance of the ceasefire by Iran and America, by Israel in Lebanon was an example of the blind massacre of the people of southern Lebanon. In less than an hour, 160 bombs were dropped by 60 Israeli fighter jets on the Dahieh of Beirut and southern Lebanon and according to the latest statistics 300 people were killed and 1,500 were injured—a figure that will probably increase significantly with displacement. This was while the ceasefire accepted by Iran also included Lebanon.

There were many statements from world leaders about Israel’s savage attack on Lebanon but the clearest of them was the statement of the Spanish Foreign Minister who said:

“The aggressions of the Zionist regime against Lebanon are unacceptable and its continuation may cause the end of the ceasefire in Iran. The war in Lebanon is a shame for humanity and the number of victims, injured, and displaced cannot be ignored.”

But this violation of the ceasefire, although criminal, does not change the main equations. Since Iran had accepted the ceasefire from a position of strength, exiting it is not a complicated task for it. Villainous forces and war criminals only understand the language of force and decisive punishment of the ceasefire violator is the only way forward. The more important point is that whether Iran continues the ceasefire or the war resumes, all objective evidence confirms Iran’s decisive victory and the helplessness of the United States and Israel. Therefore, America will be forced again with humiliation to beg for a ceasefire—as it had been begging behind closed doors more than a month before its official acceptance.

Eight. History, Civilization, and Insult

In the last days of the war, Donald Trump claimed that he would return Iran to the “Stone Age to which it belongs.” This sentence, against the historical background of Iran, more than anything reflects the historical poverty of its speaker. In a time when many societies in northern Europe were still in the early stages of social organization, Darius the Great issued an order to dig a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea. A nation that has given Maryam Mirzakhani to the world’s mathematics, that has built Sharif, Amirkabir, and Iran University of Science and Technology, cannot be returned to the past nor defined within humiliating literature.

This insult had the opposite result: it united Iranians with various inclinations in an unprecedented way and aroused a resistant spirit that Trump never expected. Miller, a British sociologist, referring to villagers who took up guns to shoot at American helicopters, reminded that resistance is not an organization that can be destroyed; it is a fundamental human inclination against aggression that remains beyond time and place.

A large part of the suffering people of the world—especially Muslims who have always faced the issue of Palestine—will henceforth see Iran as a hero who stood proudly against superpowers equipped with the most advanced weapons. Today, those nations that possess real civilization are those in whose record there is no aggression, injustice, and corruption; otherwise, science and industry alone do not build civilization—sometimes they only make barbarism more sophisticated.

Nine. Nationalism or Treason? A Historical Paradox

In the meantime, one cannot speak of war and not speak of the extensive efforts of traitorous Iranians abroad; those who tried to join the remnants of the Pahlavi dictatorship, and those who cooperated maximally with America and Israel for the killing of the Iranian people. The monarchist current inside and outside Iran is among the other losers of this forty-day war; those who not only played a role in turning peaceful protests into a bloody riot but were also inviters and rollers of the red carpet for the bombing of their compatriots. In a situation where Iranians inside were being killed and 168 elementary school children in the city of Minab were covered in blood, they engaged in dancing, rejoicing, and thanking Trump and Netanyahu.

As part of the war, monarchist Iranians and members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, who before the start of the war had been increasingly armed by America and Israel, were ready to join Israel’s anti-Iranian project in the streets but the extensive and continuous presence of the people in the streets and the efforts of security forces prevented their actions. Perhaps in contemporary history fewer examples can be found where extreme nationalism and treason coexist so much in one place. Mohsen Milani, full professor of political science at the University of Florida, said frankly: “Warmongering traitors are the black-faced of this war and ceasefire.” They will remain black-faced in Iran’s history forever for this great betrayal.

Ten. Messages of This War to the World

This forty-day war has great lessons for the world that the author presents them not as moral recommendations but as analytical propositions arising from the objective evidence of this conflict:

One. The armies of superpowers are unable to submit a people who have a steel will to preserve their country. This war showed that the world’s largest army can be defeated against smart asymmetric warfare and national cohesion. This is a lesson that Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iran have taught with heavy human costs.

Two. If human dignity and ethics are not prioritized over democracy, the dirtiest human crimes can be committed in the name of democracy. The West must put aside hypocrisy toward nations; double standards in human rights are no longer acceptable. The application of double standards on human rights is racism in other words.

Three. The issue of Palestine must be solved through self-determination by the real owners of this land—Muslims, Christians, and Jews, inside and outside—in the form of a 100 percent independent and free referendum. This is not a political slogan but the only sustainable solution that the experience of seven decades of conflict has shown.

Four. The structure designed after World War II to manage the world no longer works. The world needs a new structure based on justice in which all nations have a share from an equal position in determining the peaceful laws of the world. Now, while the United Nations is mostly under the domination of the United States—which is the main factor of global chaos and the biggest destroyer of peace and regional stability; the United States with 240 years of history has only been able to spend 16 years without war; this country has created more than 800 military bases in more than 80 countries around the world. With this description, such a country cannot be the axis of global management.

Five. And finally, Europe must also fundamentally reconsider its connections with Iran. Europe cannot tie its national interests to the unreasonable demands of Israel or presidents like Trump—who do not adhere to the rules of international interactions. To start, Europe must set aside Iranophobia and Iran-hatred that Israel has launched and institutionalized in Western media and political circles. This pessimistic interpretation, which is mostly formed under the influence of the Iranian opposition in Europe and the Israeli lobby, is far from the reality of Iran. Iran—with a several-thousand-year history, with a complex and elite society, with common economic and energy interests with Europe—can be a good partner for all; in energy, in countering terrorism, in regional stability. But the condition of this partnership is an honest encounter, without constructed presuppositions, and independent of pressures from Israel and America.

 

Conclusion: Theoretical Analysis of a Forty-Day War

One. Testing Hypotheses

This war, beyond a military confrontation, was an empirical testing ground for several rival hypotheses in international relations theory. The results of this test are clear:

The hypothesis of military superiority—that the dominant power with superior technology can break the political will of the opponent—failed. 30,000 bombs and missiles neither destabilized Iran’s leadership, nor collapsed popular cohesion, nor disabled Iran’s missile capability. The hypothesis of social cohesion against external threat—which security theories consider one of the pillars of national deterrence—was firmly confirmed; and what happened in the 8 days between the martyrdom of the leader and the selection of the new leader, in terms of speed and depth of cohesion, even went beyond theoretical predictions. The hypothesis of controlling economic chokepoints—which says that in an era of interdependence, domination over vital waterways can replace traditional military balance—was also objectively confirmed. The Strait of Hormuz proved to be a “nuclear bomb” without nuclear weapons.

Two. Irreversible Structural Changes

Three structural changes have occurred in the regional and global order from which return is difficult or impossible for the losers: first, the stabilization of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz as a legal-operational reality—neither America can deny this reality nor its allies. Second, the collapse of Western consensus around American hegemony—the rift that began from the time of the Ukraine war has now turned into a permanent gap. Third, the emergence of Iran as an independent polar actor in the emerging multipolar system—a system that Robert Pape called “the emergence of the fourth center of global power.”

Three. New Concepts Arising from This War

This war highlighted several phenomena so much that they deserve conceptual naming:

One. “Strait-Centrism”: The power that legitimately and within its own borders controls a strategic economic-maritime chokepoint can create regional hegemony without symmetric military superiority. Iran showed that controlling the Strait of Hormuz is practically equivalent to an economic nuclear weapon.

Two. “Shock Cohesion”: The opposite of “shock division”—when a severe external crisis, instead of deepening social gaps, closes them temporarily but with unexpected depth. Iran had an unprecedented example of this phenomenon: 8 days of leadership vacuum, the most severe bombing of the past half-century, and a cohesion that surprised sociologists.

Three. “Epic of Forty Nights”: A concept to describe the active solidarity of ordinary people in an existential crisis, where the citizen turns into a soldier, the neighbor into a rescuer, and the artist into a trench—without command, out of will. This phenomenon is rare in the history of national resistances.

Four. “Hollow Nationalism”: A current that claims nationalism but in the moment of real test stands in the enemy’s line. This concept goes beyond “treason”—it explains why those who spoke for decades about Iran and Iranian identity whistled at the blood of the homeland’s children.

Five. “Bomb Democracy”: The claim of bringing freedom through bombing non-military infrastructure. In this war, for the first time an American president expressed this claim openly: “The people beg us to bomb so they can be freed.” Previously this concept had been used about the destruction of the Nazi regime in Germany but the reality is that bombing and massacre are not the offspring of democracy. Only deep awareness and steel national will create democracy in any point of the world.

Six. “Secular Theocratic Radicalism”: A current that uses religious literature to justify power, not for religiosity. Hegseth and the current he represents are neither fully religious nor fully secular—they use religion as a weapon of justification.

Seven. “Forced Multipolarity”: A multipolar order that is not created through gradual agreement but through the military-economic defeat of a hegemon in a local conflict. This war showed that global order change sometimes happens with a 54-kilometer strait.

In this note, the global situation is described as extremely dangerous and it is explicitly reminded that the law of the jungle has practically prevailed. The West with its own hands has destroyed the valuable heritage of modernity—human rights, international law, the principle of immunity of civilians, the sanctity of human cultural heritage. This is not an emotional claim but a documented proposition.

But it should be emphasized: no wise person in Iran condemns the entirety of the West or engages in West-hatred. There are many honest people and elites in the West who themselves have stood sincerely against these crimes—from prominent analysts to fair journalists and thousands of European and American citizens who came to the streets. The West must pay deep attention to the atrocities that have taken shape in its intellectual, cultural, and political environment and know that the matter of fascism and Nazism still has roots in the West and this root has not been dried. People in Europe and America will henceforth face doubled human responsibilities—a responsibility that not their governments but they themselves must be accountable for.

In such conditions, impartial analysis from a moral perspective is also a kind of positioning—positioning in favor of the status quo. This is why the author has chosen to write frankly.

Five. Iran’s Domestic Future: Opportunity and Danger

An important question remains unanswered: military victory does not solve internal challenges. If Iran wanted to bring national cohesion to the level it reached during the war, it would need thousands of billions of tomans of cultural investment and a lot of time—but the war created this cohesion overnight and without cost. This is a historic opportunity, but opportunities do not last.

If extremists and toxic forces around the hard core of governance are not controlled, if social policies are not transformed within the framework of pluralism, if the expansion of democracy and the strengthening of social justice do not occur, and if international relations are not reconstructed with the aim of finding a serious share in global interactions—in a world whose similarities to fifty years ago have seriously decreased—the level of social cohesion can return to the pre-war era. In addition, the government must quickly, by earning income from the lifting of part of the sanctions, with the allocation of temporary subsidies, bring order to the disordered economy of the Iranian people so that the vulnerable classes are not under more pressure. It seems that the war has created the opportunity for reforms in Iran to a good extent and the situation will gradually face changes; however, concern in this regard is justified.

Six. Limitations of This Analysis

Scientific honesty requires that the limitations of this writing be honestly confessed. First, many operational information of the war—including exact casualty figures of each side, complete details of the Islamabad ceasefire agreement, and the exact map of military damages—are still behind the veil of censorship or ambiguity. Second, this analysis is mainly written from the Iranian perspective and based on critical Western sources and the direct voice of some actors who did not intend honest narration of this war is present. Third, the sustainable future of the agreement, the path of Islamabad negotiations, and the long-term impact of this war on Iran’s internal structure are variables whose definitive evaluation at this stage is not possible.

On the other hand, it may be said that this note presents a narrative of victory and a bias toward Iran is seen in it, but in reality, the criterion of analysis is the comparison of announced goals with achieved results. The United States and Israel at the beginning of the conflict pursued specific goals, and what today enables the formation of a narrative of “strategic non-success” is the non-fulfillment of the majority of these goals.

Even if it is assumed that the elimination of some key figures or damage to infrastructure is among the initial achievements—which could especially be raised by Donald Trump and Netanyahu—these cases alone do not mean the achievement of strategic goals. Because the elimination of individuals, in political structures based on institutions, is mostly replaceable and the destruction of infrastructure is also possible to rebuild in the presence of skilled human force, financial capacity, and geopolitical incomes, including incomes related to the Strait of Hormuz.

From this perspective, the main distinction between “temporary successes” and “strategic victory” gains importance. Accordingly, the present analysis is more based on measuring the ratio between announced goals and real results than on bias.

With all these limitations, what is provable is this: the forty-day war that began with the aim of changing the political system, destroying Iran’s missile capability, and opening the Strait of Hormuz ended in an agreement in which America accepted Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, enrichment, and the withdrawal of its forces from the region as the basis for negotiation. This distance between goal and result is itself the most eloquent judgment of history about this war.

In the end, let us remember the musician who was playing his instrument next to the Damavand power plant on the night of Trump’s deadline. He was neither a warrior nor a politician; he was just an Iranian artist who knew how to stand against a threat—not with anger, but with dignity. Perhaps this image shows the real nature of this victory better than any academic analysis.

Sources and References

Persons and Experts

1. John Mearsheimer — Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago; prominent analyst of international relations and theorist of offensive realism. His statements about the war crimes of Trump and Netanyahu, and the analysis of America’s strategic defeat. 
2. Simon Johnson — Economist and Nobel Prize winner in economics; professor at MIT. Description of Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz as “Iran’s sanctioning of America.”
3. Robert Pape — Senior Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago; specialist in international security and aerial wars. Analysis of Iran’s victory as America’s biggest strategic failure since the Vietnam era.
4. Jeffrey Sachs — Economist and professor at Columbia University; senior advisor to the United Nations. Analysis of the origin of the war and the collapse of discernment in the structure of Washington power.
5. Janice Stein — Professor of International Relations at the University of Toronto, Canada; founder of the Munk Institute. Analysis of the ceasefire as a major failure of America and emphasis on Iran’s control over 20 percent of the world’s oil.
6. Timothy Snyder — Professor of History at the University of Toronto; specialist in European history and 20th-century political history. Multi-faceted assessment of Trump’s defeat in this war.
7. Thierry Breton — Former European Commissioner for the Internal Market. Analysis of the mechanism of Strait of Hormuz tolls and the stabilization of Iran’s control over this waterway.
8. Professor Iraj Sobhani — Professor at the Paris Medical School; public health expert. Statements about the war crime nature of the attack on the Pasteur Institute of Iran in an interview with BBC Persian.
9. Erica Guevara Rosas — Senior Director at Amnesty International; specialist in international humanitarian law. Explanation of the illegality of attacks on non-military infrastructure.
10. Vali Nasr — Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University; former advisor in the Obama era. Description of Sharif University as a symbol of Iran’s modernization and progress.
11. Ben Rhodes — Former Deputy National Security Advisor in the Obama era. Assessment of the ceasefire as a disastrous situation for Washington.
12. Trita Parsi — Vice President of the Quincy Institute; analyst of US foreign policy toward Iran. Analysis of the loss of weight of Trump’s threats after the failure of the war option.
13. Glenn Diesen — Professor of International Relations; specialist in global order and American hegemony. Warning about the disastrous nature of being in the front line of a declining hegemon.
14. Mohsen Milani — Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida; specialist in Iran policy. Description of warmongering traitors as the black-faced of this war.
15. David Miller — British sociologist; researcher in the field of power, media, and resistance. Analysis of resistance as a fundamental human inclination beyond organization.
16. Maryam Mirzakhani (1977–2017) — Iranian mathematician and professor at Stanford University; first woman in history to win the Fields Medal (2014); graduate of Sharif University.
17. Siamak Moreh Sedgh — Former head of the Tehran Jewish Association. Statements about the bombing of the Rafi’nia Synagogue by Israel and the fundamental difference between Zionism and Mosaic teachings.
18. Amir Saeid Iravani — Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations. Letter to the Security Council about America’s responsibility in the Dey 1404 (2025-2026) unrest.
19. Abbas Araghchi — Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Statement about the continuation of the armed forces’ control over the Strait of Hormuz after the ceasefire.
20. Yasmin Ansari — Member of the US House of Representatives. Request for the activation of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution and the removal of Trump.
21. Christiane Amanpour — Former senior CNN reporter and international journalist. Reaction to Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization. 
22. Robin Monotti — Prominent French filmmaker and analyst. Interpretation of Trump’s threat as implicit nuclear threat.
23. Dan Caine — Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Statements about the pilot rescue operation on Iranian soil.
24. Joe Kent — Former head of the US anti-terrorism section; former member of US special forces. Confessions about America’s role in creating ISIS, and warning about the consequences of attempting to destroy Iranian civilization.
25. Hillary Clinton — Secretary of State in the Obama era and US presidential candidate. Admission to the creation of ISIS by America.
26. Max Blumenthal — Journalist and editor of The Grayzone; writer for the New York Times. Report about Israel’s role in provoking violent riots in Iran.
27. Pete Hegseth — US Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration. Statements about the divine nature of the war against Iran.
28. Leo XIV — Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Statement about the illegality of attacks on non-military infrastructure and condemnation of the war against Iran.
29. Shehbaz Sharif — Prime Minister of Pakistan. Role in mediating negotiations for the ceasefire between Iran and America.
30. Ali Ghamsari — Prominent Iranian musician. Presence next to the Damavand power plant on the night of Trump’s deadline and playing music against the bombing threat.

Media and News Sources

1. The New York Times — Report about the emergence of Iran as the fourth pole of global power; Max Blumenthal’s report about Israel’s role in the unrest.
2. The Wall Street Journal — Report about the hidden role of European countries in empowering US military operations.
3. Financial Times — Analysis of Iran’s ability to preserve its defensive and missile capability in severe war conditions.
4. The Washington Times — Description of the Strait of Hormuz as Iran’s economic “nuclear bomb.”
5. The Atlantic — Analysis of Trump’s main failure in insisting on accepting Iran’s power.
6. Associated Press — Report about the mechanism of receiving transit fees from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
7. RT Network — Report about America’s ban on publishing satellite images due to damages to military bases.
8. Middle East Eye — Analysis of Trump’s contradiction in labeling Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.
9. Fox News Network — Poll showing 64 percent of Americans’ dissatisfaction with Trump’s performance in the war with Iran.
10. BBC Persian — Interview with Professor Iraj Sobhani about the attack on the Pasteur Institute.
11. Truth Social Network — Trump’s message on Farvardin 18, 1405 (April 7, 2026) about the threat to destroy Iranian civilization.

Official Documents and Statements

1. Statement of the Supreme National Security Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Farvardin 19, 1405 (April 8, 2026) — Announcement of victory, explanation of the Islamabad negotiations, and Iran’s ten-point plan to end the war.
2. Trump’s Announcement, Farvardin 19, 1405 (April 8, 2026) — Announcement of the two-week suspension of bombing Iran and acceptance of the ten-point plan as the basis for negotiation.
3. Letter of Amir Saeid Iravani to the UN Security Council — Demand for America’s accountability for damages from the Dey 1404 unrest.
4. Report of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) in the US Army — Documentation of 200 military complaints about the religious justification of the war against Iran.
5. Trump’s Press Conference, Farvardin 17, 1405 (April 6, 2026) — Confessions about arming Iranian rioters and justification of attacks on non-military infrastructure.
6. Bahrain’s Draft Resolution in the UN Security Council, Farvardin 18, 1405 (April 7, 2026) — Vetoed by China and Russia.
7. Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Sultanate of Oman — Announcement of agreement with Iran on ship passage rules in the Strait of Hormuz; first official recognition of Iran’s control over this waterway.
8. 13-Article Impeachment Plan of US Congressional Democrats — Accusation of Trump for starting the war, assassination, war crimes, and violating international law.
9. Report of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran, Farvardin 18, 1405 (April 7, 2026) — Explanation of America’s unsuccessful operation to abduct uranium from Isfahan nuclear facilities.
10. Statement of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Araghchi) — Announcement of the continuation of the armed forces’ control over the Strait of Hormuz in the ceasefire period.