Ceasefires are often presented as moments of relief—pauses in violence that open the door to diplomacy. But sometimes they reveal something more important: who really won the war. The ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran could be one of those moments.
On the surface, all parties claim success. Donald Trump has declared one “Total and complete victory”presenting the agreement as evidence that US objectives have been met. Meanwhile, Iran’s leadership has hailed the ceasefire as a strategic achievement, with the Supreme National Security Council formally endorsing the deal on the condition that attacks stop.
But beneath these competing narratives lies a deeper reality: the content and structure of the ceasefire suggests that Iran may have emerged not weakened but strengthened. While most of its senior leadership has long since been killed the conflictthe regime’s ability to rapidly appoint replacements and maintain cohesion points to institutional stability rather than collapse.
The truce was not imposed by decisive military defeat. it was negotiated – and shaped – around Iranian terms, bringing benefits, with Tehran’s ten-point plan serving as an initial framework for negotiations rather than a finalized agreement imposed on Iran.
Tehran’s proposals went beyond ending hostilities. they They include sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, reconstruction support and continued influence over the Strait of Hormuz. They also include the effective withdrawal of the US from the Middle East – and an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil transits, has reopened under Iranian supervision, a clear signal of where leverage now lies. Control over Hormuz is not only strategic, but economic. Iran has reportedly proposed continuing to charge transit fees that began during the conflict — creating a potential revenue stream just as reconstruction is needed.
In fact, a war involving continued bombing of Iranian infrastructure could now leave Iran with new financial mechanisms to rebuild and potentially expand its regional influence.
The logic is paradoxical, but familiar. Military campaigns are designed to degrade an adversary’s capabilities. But when they fail to produce decisive political results, they often create new opportunities for the target state. Iran entered this war already adapted to the pressure. Years of sanctions had forced it to build resilience by diversifying networks, strengthening institutions and developing asymmetric strategies.
What the war seems to have done is hasten this process. Rather than collapsing, Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt global energy markets, absorb ongoing shocks and force negotiations on terms that include economic concessions.
The illusion of victory
This is where the dissonance in US messaging becomes more apparent. The US president may have framed the ceasefire as one “Complete Victory” but apparently, while the cease-fire agreement will include the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been a key demand of the US president in recent days, the talks will focus on Iran’s ten-point plan rather than the original American 15-point planwhich focused on dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.
The change suggests an American search for an off-road platform. At the same time, Iran has maintained a consistent position: rejecting interim agreements unless they deliver structural results such as sanctions relief and security guarantees.
For Washington, the ceasefire halts escalation and stabilizes markets. For Tehran, it aims to consolidate the leverage provided by its control of the Strait of Hormuz. This asymmetry suggests that the ceasefire is not a neutral pause, but a moment that can block a shift in regional power.
The most decisive dimension of this change is the economic one. There is war destabilized global markets – with oil prices fluctuating significantly in response to supply disruptions. But the ceasefire brings a new dynamic. If sanctions are eased, Iran gains access to global markets at a time of steady energy demand. Combined with potential transit revenue and rebuilding flows, this creates the conditions for a significant economic recovery.
In fact, war risks producing the opposite of the intended result. Instead of weakening Iran economically, he may have strengthened it.
A stronger Iran, a weaker order?
This raises a larger question: What does this truce reveal about power itself? For decades, US influence in the Middle East has supported military dominance and economic pressure. This conflict suggests that both are under strain.
Militarily, the US and Israel have demonstrated overwhelming capabilities, but without decisive results. Iran has retained its core capacitiesmaintained cohesion and used his position to form the landing of the escalation.
At the same time, for the US and Israel, legitimacy has eroded. The war’s contested rationale, civilian toll and lack of broad international support have weakened the two countries’ standing, even among allies. American soft power – long central to its global leadership – has diminished. Trump’s increasingly abusive social media posts have certainly alienated even his closest allies, most of whom remained silent in the face of US threats.
Economically, Iran’s ability to influence – and potentially monetize – global energy flows gives it a form of structural power that force alone cannot neutralize. The result is a paradox: a war aimed at containing Iran may have strengthened its power.
It’s still early. Ceasefires can fail, negotiations can fail and conflicts can reignite. But if this deal stands – even temporarily – it could mark a turning point. Not because it ends war, but because of what it reveals about how wars are now won and lost. Victory is no longer determined solely by battlefield dominance, but by outcomes that are economically viable, politically legitimate, and strategically viable.
By these measures, Iran seems well positioned. The US and Israel may have demonstrated military superiority. But Iran has demonstrated something different: the ability to endure, adapt and turn pressure into leverage.
That’s why this ceasefire matters not just as the end of a phase of the conflict, but as marking the moment when a war meant to weaken Iran instead left it stronger — and exposed the limits of the power it sought to contain.
Bamo Nouri is an Honorary Scholar, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London. Inderjeet Parmar is a professor in international politics, City St George’s, University of London.
This article was reprinted from Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read on original article.
