Image source, AFP via Getty Images
The current phase of the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran appears to be winding down, at least according to messages from Washington.
On Tuesday, May 5, following several weeks of ceasefire, US Secretary of State Mark Rubio announced the effective conclusion of ‘Operation Epic Fury.’ However, this declaration was somewhat downplayed amid broader statements.
This naturally raises the question: who ultimately won the war? The answer largely depends on who you ask.
Iranian state media portray the conflict as evidence that the country challenged and defeated some of the world’s most powerful military alliances.
Meanwhile, in Washington, President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly claim victory, asserting their objectives have been met.
Beyond public declarations, assessing true victory places greater importance on dialogue than on the conflict itself.
Image source, Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
According to reports from Axios, Reuters, and other US media, the White House believes it is close to a 14-point agreement with Iran.
This agreement would outline frameworks for Iran’s nuclear program, the Strait of Hormuz, and future negotiations on regional tensions.
A spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry stated that they are reviewing the proposal and plan to respond publicly through Pakistani mediation. However, some senior Iranian politicians have already publicly rejected the offer.
A spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission posted on social media platform X, “America will gain nothing from a lost war,” dismissing the proposal as a “US wish list.”
According to publicly available terms, Iran is expected to suspend the majority of its nuclear activities for 20 years, transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and accept extensive international inspections.
Additionally, the agreement would require Iran to commit to maintaining full access in the Strait of Hormuz.
In return, the US would gradually lift sanctions and release frozen Iranian assets. After the deal’s conclusion, Iran may be permitted to restart limited uranium enrichment.
For many inside Iran, these conditions feel closer to a defeat than an agreement. They argue that the US stopped “Operation Epic Fury” because a decisive outcome was not achieved.
Furthermore, the US initiative “Operation Freedom,” attempting to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, seems likely to deepen involvement of Gulf countries in the conflict.
During this period, Iran targeted US military bases and regional energy infrastructure, but no country has directly entered the conflict.
Image source, AFP via Getty Images
Significantly, despite the deaths of many leaders, senior military commanders, and high-security officials during the war, the Islamic Republic has not fragmented. Its political and military systems remain functional, with new appointments made promptly.
Before the conflict, some Western officials and analysts believed that intense military strikes and the assassination of Iranian commanders might trigger protests or regime collapse. However, this did not occur.
In the months prior to the war, widespread protests gradually declined. Security forces increased crackdown efforts, arrests surged, and some death penalties were issued. At the same time, state media showcased government-backed rallies in various cities.
Image source, Iranian Parliament Speaker Office/Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and senior negotiator, said, “The current state has become intolerable for the American side, while we have not yet begun a war.”
For Iran’s leadership, survival itself counts as a significant victory, especially considering Tehran’s targeting of US military bases and civilian infrastructure in the region, as well as causing damage in Israel.
Therefore, Tehran appears hesitant to enter a new phase of the conflict. Iranian officials believe their country’s economic crisis, military pressures, and endurance in prolonged conflict surpass those of their adversaries.
Image source, Asghar Besharati/Getty Images
According to them, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz significantly impacts the global economy, affecting not only energy supplies but also transportation, food security, insurance costs, and overall international trade. Currently, Iran treats reopening the Strait not as a concession but as a key bargaining instrument.
This situation could have many regional implications. Post-conflict, Iran may emerge stronger, especially relative to neighboring countries hosting US military bases or indirectly supporting US and Israeli military operations.
Image source, NurPhoto via Getty Images
This means Iran has not achieved all its objectives. The country has endured major damages, including the loss of senior commanders and severe infrastructure destruction. Continued economic pressure might reignite protests. The US and Israel have demonstrated the capability to conduct deep incursions inside Iran using advanced weapons and intelligence assets.
War is not always decided solely on the battlefield.
Ultimately, the conflict’s outcome will likely be judged not by military engagements, but by the results of negotiations that bring it to an end. If Washington manages to coerce Iran into a comprehensive nuclear deal, the US will count that as a success. Conversely, if Tehran maintains its regional influence and avoids full nuclear restrictions, it will consider itself victorious.
At present, both sides declare victory to their populations. The true answer will become clear only after discussions conclude—and only if both parties remain committed to dialogue until the very end.
We also have a YouTube channel where you can get news updates. Subscribe for more information.
