Who Won the Iran War? 10 Military Experts Explain
President Donald Trump has touted his war-ending deal with Iran as a “great agreement.” Many have questioned whether the price of the nearly four-month war in the Middle East was too high and whether the U.S. has really come out on top.
The U.S. laid out several goals when it joined Israel with strikes against Iran on February 28. It succeeded in beating down Iran’s conventional military power. But it did not fully achieve the White House’s other stated objectives: eliminating the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, regime change, dismantling Tehran’s support for proxy groups and wiping out its ballistic missile capacity.
With America’s relations with key allies like Israel frayed, 13 U.S. service members killed, billions of dollars spent and weapons stockpiles drawn down, the picture is complicated.
In war, there are always different interpretations of the outcome. Newsweek asked 10 experts which side, ultimately, triumphed. The answers were not uniform, but two themes emerged: Iran’s regime survived, giving it a strategic win, and the U.S. achieved significant military objectives while falling short politically and strategically.
Here is what they said.
Burcu Ozcelik, Royal United Services Institute in London: Iran
“There was no meaningful victory for ordinary Iranians, for regional stability, or for U.S. strategy.”
“Iran’s leaders-the heirs, usurpers and legacy personalities who have dominated the country’s top echelons since February 28-are the winners. Tragically, the winners are not Iran’s reformists, human rights defenders or civil society activists, who have risked their lives on Tehran’s streets over years of protest and repression.
“The war has weakened Iran militarily and deepened the country’s economic distress. But it has also strengthened the hand of those inside the system who thrive on siege politics, securitisation and the argument that only the hard centre of the regime can protect the state from external threat.
“Nor can Washington claim a clean victory. America’s adversaries, especially China and Russia, will look at the war as further evidence that U.S. grand strategy is strained and its credibility diminished. Even when the U.S. can still project overwhelming military power, its ability to translate force into durable political outcomes has come under undeniable strain.
“So the answer is uncomfortable: there was no meaningful victory for ordinary Iranians, for regional stability, or for U.S. strategy. The immediate winners are Iran’s power holders-and the wider beneficiaries are America’s adversaries watching from the sidelines.”
Melanie Garson, associate professor in international security and conflict resolution at University College London: Iran
“On face value, it is easier for them to claim that they have been more successful strategically having, in their view, defended against aggression.”
“On face value, without a clear assessment of Iran’s current military capabilities or the full picture of their economic losses, it is easier for them to claim that they have been more successful strategically having, in their view, defended against aggression and demonstrated their ability to strike neighbors and create a chokepoint of global significance, secured an agreement for funds for reconstruction, the easing of sanctions and release of seized assets, in return for allowing passage in the Strait of Hormuz, which they allowed previously, and a commitment to step away from a narrative of developing nuclear capability.
“The regime demonstrated its ability to survive both external and internal threats, have its control over Lebanon formalized as part of the agreement and the resilience of its relationships with China and Russia with the intelligence and electromagnetic warfare intelligence it received.
“Whilst the U.S. announcement tries to keep focus on the nuclear aspect as its chief goal, there are significant challenges on the implementation of the agreement in the long term that would either require the U.S. to make further concessions or re-impose sanctions. Nonetheless, the U.S. has demonstrated its commitment to its Middle East vision and the tech partnerships formulated at the beginning of the administration.”
Jim Townsend, former Pentagon official: No one
“It’s one of those cases in history where everyone fails.”
“It’s not a question of who won but in the end, are we weaker or stronger because of this war. At the end of the negotiations to come, the Iranians may be stronger given their control of the Gulf, and the U.S. seen as weaker, not militarily, but geopolitically because the globe saw the chaotic way in which the administration prosecuted the war, and the meager results from such a huge effort. Our image as a superpower has been tarnished. It’s one of those cases in history where everyone fails.”
Michael O’Hanlon, director of research and senior fellow of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution: No one
“Significant achievements for both sides-though the U.S. achievements that mattered most arguably occurred last year in one day.”
“The United States got a significant weakening of Iran’s nuclear program, but that was mostly achieved last June. We participated in a campaign that killed many top Iranian leaders though the benefits of that outcome are unclear given the hardiness and hardline qualities of successors. We weakened Iran’s missile capabilities, but not that much, apparently. We showed we can muster a pretty good blockade. But Iran can too.
“And it further showed it can face down and fend off the United States, and that it can replace fallen political and military leaders and cause significant lasting damage to the world economy. Significant achievements for both sides-though the U.S. achievements that mattered most arguably occurred last year in one day.”
Brian Carter, fellow focusing on military affairs at the American Enterprise Institute: Iran
“Iran came out on top because, while the United States accomplished key military objectives, the political impact of the deal and the economic relief the deal could provide may allow Iran to undo U.S. military success.”
“The military outcomes, on their face, look positive for the United States. The Iranian ballistic missile and drone programs are degraded to varying degrees [the former more so than the latter], and much of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity is destroyed as a result of last June’s strikes. Other elements of the Iranian military, like the navy, basically cease to exist as a modern or conventional fleet, though their mines, anti-ship missiles and drones remain a serious threat.
“But war is a political phenomenon, and even the most brilliant military success cannot paper over a bad strategic outcome.
The current agreement, assuming the leaked information about it is correct, would enable Iran to rebuild all the assets the United States destroyed militarily.
“The rate of Iran’s reconstitution was always heavily dependent on whether Iran could secure sanctions relief, and Iran could certainly secure sanctions relief under this deal. First of all, the sanctions waivers and lifting the U.S. Navy blockade in the first 60 days of the memorandum of understanding will give Iran substantial funds. Second, Iran could offer some nuclear concessions, such as an end to enrichment, to secure additional relief. Iran has long been opposed to such concessions, and it may not offer them. But Iran cannot enrich at any serious level anyway, given last summer’s strikes, and concessions could allow it to secure funding with which Iran could rebuild its nuclear program and its military.
“The U.S. military did a lot of damage to Iran in this war, but the agreement that the United States appears to have signed will allow Iran to undo much of that damage in due time.”
James Stavridis, retired U.S. Navy admiral and former supreme allied commander of NATO: Iran
“It is difficult to make the case that this war achieved any significant positive result for the United States.”
“It is too soon to fully judge the results of the war in Iran in terms of the precise outcomes, but from what we know now, it is difficult to make the case that this war achieved any significant positive result for the United States. Iran retains the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, is in possession of a thousand pounds of highly enriched uranium, continues to support its proxies fully, and has significant military capability. They may receive billions in cash payments from a variety of sources. It appears sanctions will be lifted on their sale of energy. The cost to the U.S. was tens of billions of dollars in equipment and operational costs, and the tragic loss of more than a dozen military personnel.
“The task ahead is to fully open the Strait of Hormuz and hopefully Europe will participate in minesweeping and escort operations. The longer-term requirement will be to extract the highly enriched uranium and put an inspection regime in place. Both seem like distant and difficult goals to achieve at this point.”
Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: U.S.
“Neither side will gain a complete victory. That said, I think the United States is in a better position.”
“The United States was able to destroy the Iranian navy and badly damage the air force. It has destroyed Iran’s ballistic missile production facilities and much of Iranian defense industry.
“However, Iran retains a large number of missiles and can replenish drones readily. The attacks in June and recently severely damaged Iran’s nuclear program, setting it back perhaps 10 years. However, there is no guarantee that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
“Iran has been able to take the worst that the United States and Israel can inflict and survive. It has shown an ability to inflict damage on countries in the region with its extensive missile and drone capabilities. Most of all, it has been able to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and, perhaps, get recognition for its sovereignty there.
“The Iranian regime is unlikely to change. Although much of the leadership has been eliminated, those who have stepped up are at least as hardline as their predecessors.
“The Gulf states will move closer to the United States and Israel, though that may make them uncomfortable, because they’ve seen what Iran can do to them. There will be some hedging about oil shipments, perhaps more pipelines. The U.S. Navy will do some soul-searching about its failure to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
“There will be a window of vulnerability lasting several years in the western Pacific because of U.S. munitions expenditures. However, China might still be deterred, having seen the high level of U.S. military skill, not just against Iran but also against Venezuela and elsewhere.
“Depending on how the unresolved questions play out, one side or the other could have a major gain. However, neither side will gain a complete victory. There will always be compromises in a negotiated agreement, which some observers will see as defeats.
“That said, I think the United States is in a better position. […] The United States and Israel have conducted about 20,000 strikes against Iran, but because of Iranian information suppression, we don’t see the effect of all of those strikes.”
Yossi Mekelberg, senior consulting fellow at Chatham House: Iran
“There are hardly any winners, but the Iranian regime feels in a stronger position than the rest.”
Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science: Iran
“There is a relative consensus worldwide, even in the United States, that Iran has won the war and President Trump lost this war.”
“The underlying strategic goal of the U.S.-Israel war was to bring about regime change, to topple the Islamic Republic and replace it with a more compliant, accommodating government. Look at where we are today, or what the memorandum of understanding includes-I think the reason why I say that Iran emerged with major strategic advantages is because we can really understand this particular point by process of elimination.
“Let’s see what this memorandum of understanding didn’t include: there’s hardly any word about regime change, there’s hardly any word about unconditional surrender […] There’s hardly any word about Iran’s ballistic missiles. There’s hardly any word about Iran’s regional allies or proxies-in fact, Iran succeeded in linking the end of the war with the United States to a ceasefire in Lebanon, so in fact the reverse has happened. Not only the United States did not really force Iran to basically end its support for its regional allies, it was Iran that succeeded in forcing the United States to link the end of the war with Iran to Israel’s ceasefire in Lebanon.
“There’s a relative consensus worldwide, even in the United States, that Iran has won the war and President Trump lost this war. This is a very important point because the distinction between victory and defeat lies in how people worldwide see this conflict.
Iran has emerged victorious.”
Lisa Daftari, foreign policy analyst and editor-in-chief of The Foreign Desk: Iran
“Iran’s regime is the side that walks away with the most preserved.”
“If forced to pick one, Iran’s regime is the side that walks away with the most preserved. Washington degraded, but Tehran preserved the regime, the enrichment knowledge base, the missile arsenal and the proxy architecture, and it stands to recover legitimacy and assets. The lesson of the JCPOA was that a framework without enforceable limits on enrichment, missiles and regional behavior becomes a sunset clause on American leverage.
“The way to avoid repeating that mistake here is to make clear privately and publicly that the naval blockade and the kinetic option are still on the table. Tehran should negotiate the next 60 days believing that the alternative to a real deal is a return to the war it just experienced.
“Militarily, the United States and Israel achieved what was operationally on the table, namely, Iran’s enrichment infrastructure is offline, an estimated 85 percent of its defense-industrial base is degraded, and its proxy network is more exposed than at any point since 2003. That is a real tactical accomplishment. Strategically, however, the memorandum of understanding, in this capacity does not work like a peace deal. It is merely a pause. It offers only rhetorical promises on the nuclear file while deferring the actual mechanics of blocking a weapons capability. It does not address the regime’s ballistic missile arsenal, its support of proxies Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Iraqi militias, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ regional command architecture.
“There is no Additional Protocol-style inspection regime, no declared sites list, no missile range cap, no provision for the 440 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium still inside the country, and a 60-day runway during which sanctions snapback is effectively suspended. Iran’s regime set out to survive. Its main objectives were to maintain its regional posture, mainly keep its nuclear option intact, and on paper it has done so. With regard to the kinetic war, the United States has done well to achieve its objectives. The strategic phase still needs to be negotiated.
“Three costs are going to outlast the ink on this document. Militarily, 440 kilograms of 60-percent enriched uranium is still inside Iran, buried but not eliminated, and the missile and proxy files were not addressed. […] Economically, Persian Gulf growth has been revised down, Iraq nearly missed payroll over Hormuz, and Iran’s regime is positioned to receive an asset windfall that it has already publicly announced it will reinvest in offensive and defensive capability. Geopolitically, Israel’s freedom of action vis-a-vis Tehran and Lebanon has been curtailed by its principal ally.”
2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
This story was originally published June 18, 2026 at 5:06 PM.