The ongoing conflict between the United States led by Donald Trump and Iran was initially aimed at weakening Iran’s military capability and curbing its regional influence. However, instead of producing a decisive outcome, the war has evolved into a prolonged confrontation with unintended consequences.
Now, the key concern is not just how the war is fought, but how it ends. A premature US withdrawal without a formal agreement could reshape regional power dynamics in Iran’s favor.
Core Argument of the Article
The central claim is paradoxical. A war designed to weaken Iran may actually strengthen it.
If the United States ends the conflict without securing a deal, Iran can claim survival against a superior military force. In strategic terms, survival itself becomes victory. This narrative strengthens Iran internally and enhances its credibility externally.
Iran’s Strategic Gains Despite Pressure
Despite heavy strikes, Iran has demonstrated resilience. Its political system has not collapsed, and its military strategy has adapted effectively.
Iran relies on asymmetric warfare rather than conventional strength. Instead of matching US military power, it targets vulnerabilities such as energy routes and regional instability.
By restricting the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has shown it can influence global oil supply. This gives Tehran a powerful bargaining tool that extends far beyond the battlefield.
The Oil Weapon and Economic Leverage
Energy has become Iran’s most effective weapon. By threatening oil shipments and infrastructure, Iran has increased global oil prices and created economic pressure on the US and its allies.
This strategy shifts the cost of war outward. Instead of suffering in isolation, Iran ensures that the global economy shares the burden.
In this sense, Iran is not trying to win militarily but economically. If the war becomes too costly for others, Iran achieves its objective without needing battlefield dominance.
Why Gulf States Feel Exposed
Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are in a particularly vulnerable position.
They did not initiate the conflict, yet they face its consequences. Their economies depend heavily on stable energy exports and secure shipping routes.
If the war ends without clear guarantees, Iran could emerge with greater control over regional waterways and energy flows. This would allow Tehran to exert continuous pressure on Gulf states even after active fighting stops.
Escalation into Ideological Conflict
A major turning point was the killing of Ali Khamenei. Instead of weakening the system, it transformed the conflict into a religious and civilizational struggle.
His successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, inherited not just leadership but a powerful narrative of martyrdom and resistance.
This has unified Iran’s internal factions and strengthened the resolve of institutions like the Revolutionary Guards. Rather than fragmentation, the system has become more cohesive and radicalized.
Miscalculation by the United States and Israel
Analysts argue that the US and Benjamin Netanyahu misjudged Iran’s response.
The assumption was that targeting leadership and military infrastructure would cause internal collapse. Instead, Iran’s system proved resilient due to its layered power structure and long experience with external pressure, including sanctions and war.
This miscalculation has prolonged the conflict and increased its intensity.
Regional and Global Security Risks
If the US exits without a deal, Iran retains multiple tools of influence. These include control over energy chokepoints, regional proxy networks, and the ability to strike beyond the Middle East.
This creates a scenario where the war ends formally but instability continues. Gulf states remain under threat, and global trade routes remain vulnerable.
The conflict could also expand beyond the region through indirect attacks on US and allied interests worldwide.
Analytical Perspective
From a neorealist lens, this situation highlights the importance of relative gains rather than absolute outcomes. Even if both sides incur losses, what matters is who emerges in a stronger strategic position.
Iran’s ability to endure and impose costs shifts the balance of power slightly in its favor. Meanwhile, the United States risks losing credibility if it fails to secure a clear outcome after extensive military engagement.
This also reflects the limits of military power. Force can destroy capabilities, but it cannot easily reshape political systems or ideological commitments.
Conclusion
The biggest risk is not continued war but an incomplete peace.
Ending the conflict without a structured agreement could leave Iran more powerful, more confident, and more dangerous. At the same time, Gulf states would remain exposed to ongoing threats without the security guarantees needed to stabilize the region.
In this sense, how the war ends may matter more than how it is fought.
With information from Reuters.
