The US–Israel–Iran war, supposedly planned to end after achieving its objective of regime change over a weekend, is now into its fifth week. The conflict has gradually been climbing the escalation ladder. After the initial focus on military targets, the targets have gradually expanded to include sites of economic significance, hospitals, universities and schools, water desalination plants, power plants, electricity grid stations, as well as population centres; Iran continues to respond in kind.

It is no longer a secret that the United States entered the war under Israeli pressure, underestimating Iran’s preparedness and resilience. It had neither clear military and political objectives nor a viable exit strategy. In fact, US war objectives have progressively changed from regime change to dismantling nuclear capability, to degrading Iran’s missile and broader military capacity, and subsequently to targeting economic infrastructure; the most recent aim appears to be the opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US initiated the war without consulting its allies and regional countries. Therefore, despite overt and covert efforts, neither regional countries nor NATO has joined the war. Instead, most European Union (EU) countries have distanced themselves from the war and, in certain cases, have even denied the US use of their bases or airspace for attacks on Iran. Failure in achieving the stated or planned objectives suggests serious flaws in the assessment of the enemy, global mood, regional reaction, and its own military strategy; a natural outcome of arrogance.

The US’s overreliance on air power indicates that military planners failed to learn lessons from other conflicts in the recent past. The US President’s focus on market manipulation rather than directing and managing the war itself has not only created problems for military planners but has also led to a loss of credibility. The sacking of senior military commanders in the middle of a war is indicative of deeper disagreements between the military and political leadership.

Iran, on the other hand, is fighting for its survival and dignity. The martyrdom of its Supreme Leader united the country instead of dividing or weakening it, as was perceived by the belligerents. The martyrdom of over 60 top political and military leaders neither created a leadership vacuum nor resulted in any changes in stance or strategy. This suggests that Iran had predicted attacks on leadership and was prepared with a workable succession system.

Despite being militarily outnumbered against two very strong enemies, Iran’s strategy of using its older and less precise drones and missiles helped exhaust enemy interceptor efforts, paving the way for more precise attacks employing its newer systems. Selectively choking the Strait of Hormuz not only created pressure on the US but also caused a rift with its European allies. Since Iran could not directly target the US mainland, it instead targeted US military bases in the region, forcing the United States to pull back some of its air and naval assets. The losses suffered by American allies in the region have not only placed pressure on Washington but have also highlighted its failure to provide the promised defence of these countries, thereby exposing weaknesses and denting its status as a global leader. This may lead the Gulf countries to rethink their defence options.

Russia’s announcement of halting oil and gas exports from 1 April to 31 July, coupled with the possibility of Houthi disruptions to petroleum supplies through the Bab al-Mandab, will exacerbate the global energy crisis and increase pressure on Washington. For these reasons, while continuing its strikes and maintaining an aggressive posture, the US is badly in need of an exit.

Since the US and Iran have adopted maximalist positions regarding the cessation of hostilities, reaching a negotiated settlement is likely to be extremely difficult. Washington has also lost credibility by launching the June 2025 and February 2026 attacks on Iran while diplomatic talks were still underway. This erosion of trust makes it unlikely that any mediator or facilitator could credibly guarantee future US commitments, thereby reducing Iran’s willingness to engage in peace talks. Meanwhile, the two major powers, China and Russia, while covertly supporting Iran, appear content to keep the United States under sustained pressure.

Even if a ceasefire occurs immediately, it has exacted huge losses on all warring sides and disrupted the global economy. The US, in addition to huge expenses, has lost its image as a global leader and is looked upon as an unreliable country by friends and foes alike. Iran has suffered loss of life as well as the destruction of its defence and civil infrastructure. However, it has demonstrated remarkable resilience, proving that its population of over 90 million is not merely a crowd but a proud and determined nation. This will help Iran emerge as a stronger state in the aftermath of the war. Gulf states hosting US military bases have also suffered substantial economic losses as a result of damage to their oil and gas production infrastructure. Furthermore, these countries, especially the UAE, have suffered reputational damage, weakening their standing as secure and attractive destinations for investment.

Israel, the architect of the war, which also forced the US into this war, despite the loss of life and infrastructure, seems to have gained the most. It will rebuild its infrastructure and defence capabilities using US taxpayers’ money. After the war, it will find all its Gulf neighbours significantly weaker and incapable of resisting future Israeli aggression.

Whether the hostilities cease immediately or are prolonged until either side is exhausted, the world must brace for tectonic shifts in global power centres and the formation of new blocs and alliances.

Air Marshal M Ashfaque Arain (Retd)The writer is a retired Air Marshal of the PAF who served as Pakistan’s Air Advisor at New Delhi from 2002-06. He can be reached at ashfaquearain@yahoo.com

© The Nation