Iran-Israel conflict: All parties claim victory, but who lost?
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
In the aftermath of one of the most volatile geopolitical escalations in recent Middle Eastern history, all three primary actors -- Iran, Israel, and the United States --have emerged declaring triumph. Iranians rallied in Tehran and other cities on Tuesday night to thank the country's armed forces for valiantly fighting off the Israeli and American aggression and forcing them to unilaterally declare a ceasefire, Iranian state TV reported. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel 'achieved a historic victory' that would 'abide for generations' by removing 'two existential threats — the threat of destruction via nuclear weapons and the threat of destruction via 20,000 ballistic missiles'. US President Donald Trump has said Iran's nuclear programme has been "set back decades", a day after he claimed to have brokered a truce between Iran and Israel, despite an early US intelligence assessment that US strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear programme and likely only set it back by months. Also, Iran is reported to have moved 400 kg of enriched uranium before the US strikes.Though all the three parties have proclaimed victory, their gains appear precarious and their losses understated while the conflict has set a precedent for future clashes.Iran's regime responded to the joint strikes by organizing mass rallies in major cities, depicting the confrontation as a failed attempt by its adversaries to destroy the Islamic Republic's sovereignty and deterrent capabilities. Ayatollah Khamenei praised the military for repelling aggression and protecting Iran's nuclear dignity. The survival of the state and the rapid mobilization of nationalistic sentiment were leveraged to shore up domestic legitimacy at a time when the regime was already under significant internal pressure.Yet the reality behind the optics is far less triumphant. The US and Israeli strikes, while limited in scope, targeted key nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, and significantly disrupted Iran's enrichment capabilities. Israel also killed more than a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists. Analysts have confirmed the destruction of high-speed centrifuges and delays to uranium enrichment timelines. Intelligence assessments suggest Iran's nuclear programme has been set back enough to impact Iran's near-term ambitions.It has come to light that over 400 kg 60%-enriched uranium was moved prior to the strikes. Western intelligence officials suggest this material is now unaccounted for, raising fears of secret storage or potential weaponization. This is enough to produce 10 nuclear bombs, analysts say. If true, this proves that Iran's nuclear programme has not been completely destroyed by the US and it can put it back. Despite a major onslaught by both the US and Israel, Iran has managed to keep its nuclear power dream alive. However, it may now be forced to pursue its nuclear ambitions more covertly.Militarily, Iran's vulnerabilities were laid bare. Despite investments in missile defenses and regional deterrents, Israel and the US penetrated key Iranian airspace and carried out precise strikes. Although Iran responded with a barrage of drones and missiles that caused casualties in Israel and damage to US bases in Iraq and Qatar, its counterattack was more symbolic than decisive. This showcased Iran's ability to retaliate, but not to deter or prevent future escalations. However, Iran has demonstrated that it can penetrate Israel's famed air defence with its more powerful ballistic missiles. Politically, Iran escaped a regime-change bid by the US which would have led to the collapse of Khamenei's Islamic regime.Prime Minister Netanyahu swiftly declared that Israel had eliminated two existential threats: Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons and its long-range ballistic missile infrastructure. The operation, named 'Rising Lion,' was described by Israeli officials as its most significant air campaign. Backed by advanced Mossad intelligence and US logistical support, the strikes were both sophisticated and coordinated, targeting centrifuge bunkers, missile silos and suspected research labs as well as nuclear scientists.The strikes did succeed in severely damaging key infrastructure. Israeli officials claim that underground facilities at Fordo and missile production centers in Khorramabad were hit, delaying Iran's development of intercontinental delivery systems. In military terms, this is a short-term strategic win: Israel has bought time, potentially several years, and demonstrated its continuing ability to strike inside Iran, a deterrence message to Iran.However, the strategic gamble comes at a cost. Iran's retaliation showed that there are limits to the Israeli air defence system's effectiveness and if Iran wants it can hit targets in Israel at will. Israel is virtually a sitting duck for Iran's more advanced missiles.Domestically, Netanyahu has used the operation to solidify his political standing, especially amidst ongoing corruption trials and coalition instability. The military success gives him a powerful narrative, but if Iran's nuclear programme regenerates quickly or if the ceasefire collapses into further hostilities, that victory may begin to appear hollow.Trump has claimed that the US has set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by decades and he personally brokered a truce between Iran and Israel. The image he presented was one of decisive military leadership followed by effective diplomacy. The reality, however, is more ambiguous.From a military standpoint, the US played a limited role in the conflict by hitting only the underground nuclear sites with bunker-buster bombs. This demonstrated U.S capabilities without requiring ground force deployment. It also showed that the US can intervene in conflicts without getting drawn into them, a key goal for an American foreign policy still wary of extended entanglements in the region.However, the strategic value of these actions is debatable. Intelligence reports contradict Trump's claim of a decades-long nuclear setback to Iran, stating the damage likely delayed Iran's nuclear programme by months or, at most, two years. The disappearance of enriched uranium and the continued functionality of some underground sites suggest that the operation, while impactful, was not comprehensive. This divergence between political rhetoric and intelligence findings may further erode US institutional credibility at home and abroad.America's traditional allies were also unsettled. France and Germany expressed concern about Washington's escalation and warned of a new regional arms race.Furthermore, the conflict showed that US troops and infrastructure in the Middle East remain vulnerable. Iranian shot missiles at several American military bases in the region, highlighting the risks of being drawn deeper into conflict. While Trump avoided a full-scale war, the ceasefire he brokered remains fragile, and any future skirmish could undo the political capital he claims to have gained.Iran, Israel, and the US each emerged from the confrontation with plausible claims of victory, yet none can genuinely assert a comprehensive or unqualified win. Iran demonstrated regime survival and strategic adaptability, but at the cost of nuclear progress and internal unrest. Israel delivered a tactical blow to a looming threat but now faces the risk of multi-front escalation. The US avoided boots on the ground while projecting strength, yet failed to produce a sustainable or fully credible outcome.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump repeats claim, says ‘proud' of stopping India-Pakistan potential ‘nuclear war'
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday reiterated his claim of America's role in South Asia, calling his intervention in the India-Pakistan conflict one of his 'proudest' diplomatic achievements, a claim India has swiftly rejected. 'The most important of all, India and Pakistan… I ended that with a series of phone calls on trade. I said if you're going to go fighting each other, we're not doing any trade deal,' Trump said during a press briefing after the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands. 'I said, 'Look, if you're going to go fighting each other… it was getting very bad, you know how bad that last attack was. It was really bad,' Trump said. 'If you're going to go fighting each other, we're not doing any trade deal,' Trump said. 'I got them to reason, and I said, we're not doing a trade deal if you're going to fight. They said, no, I want to do the trade deal. We stopped the nuclear war…' #WATCH | Hague, Netherlands: US President Donald Trump says '…The most important of all, India and Pakistan…I ended that with a series of phone calls on trade. I said if you're going to go fighting each other, we're not doing any trade deal. The General from Pakistan was in… — ANI (@ANI) June 25, 2025 Trump also mentioned that Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, had visited the White House recently. 'And in fact, I had the general, who was very impressive. The general from Pakistan was in my office last week,' he said. Speaking about India, Trump added, 'Prime Minister Modi is a great friend of mine. He's a great gentleman. He's a great man. And I got them to reason. I said, we're not doing a trade deal if you're going to fight and if you're going to fight each other, we're not doing a trade deal. And you know what they said. No, I want to do the trade deal. We stopped the nuclear war,' Trump claimed. In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly asserted that he warned New Delhi and Islamabad the US would halt trade if tensions escalated further. 'I wouldn't have any interest in making a deal with either if they were going to be at war with each other. I would not and I'll let them know.' Indian officials have categorically and repeatedly denied that trade was a factor in the de-escalation, stating the conflict resolution came via direct military-to-military contact between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two countries. In a nearly 35-minute phone call with US President last week, PM Modi is said to have firmly rejected any suggestion of external mediation and stated that India does not and will 'never accept' mediation. The standoff followed a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, in which 26 civilians were killed. In response, India launched Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK. The ceasefire took effect on 10 May after four days of intense cross-border strikes.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran turns to internal crackdown in wake of 12-day war
Iranian authorities are pivoting from a ceasefire with Israel to intensify an internal security crackdown across the country with mass arrests, executions and military deployments, particularly in the restive Kurdish region, officials and activists said. People walk next to a mural with a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on a street, early hours of ceasefire, in Tehran, Iran, on June 24.(Reuters) Within days of Israel's airstrikes beginning on June 13, Iranian security forces started a campaign of widespread arrests accompanied by an intensified street presence based around checkpoints, the officials and activists said. Some in Israel and exiled opposition groups had hoped the military campaign, which targeted Revolutionary Guards and internal security forces as well as nuclear sites, would spark a mass uprising and the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. While Reuters has spoken to numerous Iranians angry at the government for policies they believed had led to the Israeli attack, there has been no sign yet of any significant protests against the authorities. Also Read | Trump says US hit ended Iran-Israel war, uses 'Hiroshima, Nagasaki' example However, one senior Iranian security official and two other senior officials briefed on internal security issues said the authorities were focused on the threat of possible internal unrest, particularly in Kurdish areas. Revolutionary Guard and Basij paramilitary units were put on alert and internal security was now the primary focus, said the senior security official. The official said authorities were worried about Israeli agents, ethnic separatists and the People's Mujahideen Organisation, an exiled opposition group that has previously staged attacks inside Iran. Activists within the country are lying low. "We are being extremely cautious right now because there's a real concern the regime might use this situation as a pretext," said a rights activist in Tehran who was jailed during mass protests in 2022. Also Read | Iran's Revolutionary Guards confirm head Ali Shadmani's killing in strikes, vow 'harsh' revenge The activist said he knew dozens of people who had been summoned by authorities and either arrested or warned against any expressions of dissent. Iranian rights group HRNA said on Monday it had recorded arrests of 705 people on political or security charges since the start of the war. Many of those arrested have been accused of spying for Israel, HRNA said. Iranian state media reported three were executed on Tuesday in Urmia, near the Turkish border, and the Iranian-Kurdish rights group Hengaw said they were all Kurdish. Iran's Foreign and Interior Ministries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. CHECKPOINTS AND SEARCHES One of the officials briefed on security said troops had been deployed to the borders of Pakistan, Iraq and Azerbaijan to stop infiltration by what the official called terrorists. The other official briefed on security acknowledged that hundreds had been arrested. Iran's mostly Sunni Muslim Kurdish and Baluch minorities have long been a source of opposition to the Islamic Republic, chafing against rule from the Persian-speaking, Shi'ite government in Tehran. The three main Iranian Kurdish separatist factions based in Iraqi Kurdistan said some of their activists and fighters had been arrested and described widespread military and security movements by Iranian authorities. Ribaz Khalili from the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI) said Revolutionary Guards units had deployed in schools in Iran's Kurdish provinces within three days of Israel's strikes beginning and gone house-to-house for suspects and arms. The Guards had taken protective measures too, evacuating an industrial zone near their barracks and closing major roads for their own use in bringing reinforcements to Kermanshah and Sanandaj, two major cities in the Kurdish region. A cadre from the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK), who gave her nom de guerre of Fatma Ahmed, said the party had counted more than 500 opposition members being detained in Kurdish provinces since the airstrikes began. Ahmed and an official from the Kurdish Komala party, who spoke on condition of anonymity, both described checkpoints being set up across Kurdish areas with physical searches of people as well as checks of their phones and documents.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump says US would protect NATO allies, recognizing that 'they love their countries'
Two words came up again and again around NATO's annual summit this week: Article 5. Over the years, President Donald Trump has suggested that his backing for other allies under NATO's collective security guarantee would depend on whether U.S. allies are spending enough on defense. As a candidate in 2016, Trump suggested that he as president would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defense guarantee. In March this year, he expressed uncertainty that NATO would come to the United States' defense if needed. But on Wednesday, after he and his NATO counterparts had jointly underlined their "ironclad commitment" to come to each other's aid if attacked, Trump appeared to have changed his tune. "They want to protect their country, and they need the United States, and without the United States, it's not going to be the same," he told reporters in The Hague. Live Events "I left there saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip off. And we're here to help them protect their country," he said. What Article 5 says Article 5 is the foundation stone on which the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization is built. It states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. It also states that if such an armed attack occurs, each member would take, individually and in concert with others, "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' That security guarantee is the reason previously neutral Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and why Ukraine itself and other countries in Europe also want in. When it has been invoked Article 5 was only invoked once, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, paving the way for NATO's biggest ever operation in Afghanistan. But NATO allies have also taken collective defense measures, including joining the U.S. to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as help keep the peace in the Balkans. The Three Musketeers-like pledge of all for one, one for all, is at the heart of NATO's deterrent effect. To question it too loudly might invite an adversary to test it. European officials have said that Russia is planning to do just that. The impact of Article 5 on Ukraine NATO's credibility hinges on Article 5 and its commitment to offer membership to any European country that can contribute to security in Europe and North America. But Ukraine, currently in the middle of war with Russia, might oblige all 32 member countries to spring to its defense militarily, potentially igniting a wider war with a nuclear-armed country. Trump is vetoing its membership for the foreseeable future. Article 5 becomes problematic when the territory of a member is unclear. For instance, Russian forces entered Georgia in August 2008, a few months after NATO leaders first promised the country it would join, along with Ukraine. Georgia's NATO application is still pending but seems unlikely for many years. Russia continues to occupy large swaths of Ukraine and other parts are contested, meaning that its borders cannot be easily defined.
