The article questions whether the US achieved strategic victory in its confrontation with Iran, arguing that true victory requires establishing an order that no longer depends on the adversary’s cooperation or restraint.

Washington’s reported demand for Iran to guarantee the Strait of Hormuz remains open (with a 24-hour deadline) and subsequent diplomatic efforts suggest that, despite military strikes, Iran still retains the capacity to influence a critical geopolitical chokepoint and regional security.

Military success (tactical victory) is not the same as political dominance (strategic victory); the persistence of diplomacy, mediation, and renewed blockade alongside claims of “complete defeat” highlights the gap between destruction and the ability to impose a stable order independent of Tehran’s behavior.

In international politics, victory is not measured solely by the number of targets destroyed or the volume of firepower unleashed. The ultimate test is whether the victorious power can consolidate its preferred order without relying on the enemy’s cooperation or restraint. If preserving that order still depends on the other side’s behavior, at least one strategic question remains: Did the war truly end in victory?

That is precisely the question sharpened by the confrontation between Iran and the United States and the escalation that followed. If Iran has been “completely defeated,” as Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed, why did reports published on July 10 indicate that Washington had asked Tehran to formally guarantee that the Strait of Hormuz would remain open to commercial shipping—and gave it a 24-hour deadline to do so?

The phase of the crisis examined here began when three vessels were targeted in the Strait of Hormuz, an incident that came after only a brief pause following the ceasefire and once again revived the prospect of direct war between Iran and the United States. Washington initially responded by bombing more than eighty targets inside Iran, describing the restoration of deterrence as the operation’s stated objective. Tehran, according to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), initially retaliated by striking U.S. military targets in Bahrain and Kuwait and shooting down an MQ-9 drone. Whatever the competing accounts of the damage inflicted, one fact soon became clear: the ceasefire had not ended the crisis and subsequently began to unravel.

At that stage of the crisis, reports emerged that the United States, through both direct contacts and regional mediators, had asked Iran to publicly commit........

© Eurasia Review