Why the U.S. and Israel Can Be Seen as Defeated in the War Against Iran

WANA (Jun 25) – Assessing the success or failure of actors in a military conflict must always be done in relation to the declared objectives of those actors. From Iran’s perspective, it was not the initiator of the recent confrontation; rather, it became the target of a military attack while in the midst of preparations for the sixth round of negotiations in Muscat.

Based on available evidence, this attack was carried out by Israel with coordination from the United States. In his first video message released just hours after the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu placed particular emphasis on inciting domestic unrest in Iran.

The adversary’s strategic analysis was based on two main pillars: first, creating a disruption in Iran’s military decision-making and command system through a sudden strike, such that Iran would be unable to deliver a heavy and wide-scale response; second, provoking social and political divides with the aim of expanding internal protests and activating the so-called “regime change” project. This scenario was the result of decades of planning, investment, and structural preparation.

The rally crowd in Sadr City, Baghdad, in support of Iran. Social media/ WANA News Agency

However, the initial outcomes of this operation turned out contrary to the enemy’s expectations. Under the direct command of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, the country’s military structure was restored within a few hours, and Iran’s large-scale missile operation began less than 24 hours after the Israeli attack.

On the social front as well, not only were there no signs of domestic unrest, but the atmosphere moved toward national cohesion and a focus on defending the country’s territorial integrity. According to some analysts, the public’s negative reaction to figures like Reza Pahlavi (son of the former Shah of Iran) siding with the Israeli attack was a reflection of this social cohesion; support by some opposition groups for a foreign military strike was even criticized by traditional opponents of the Islamic Republic.

Israel’s other declared objectives also remained unfulfilled. Despite threats, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has reportedly remained operational. In the missile domain as well, Iran’s long-range attacks continued up until the final minutes before the announced ceasefire (7:30 a.m. Tehran time); something that, according to observers, is a sign of Iran’s preserved offensive capability and its ability to respond to threats.

Images of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in the hands of the people of Caracas. A gathering of several thousand in Caracas in support of the Iranian people. Social media/ WANA News Agency

The direct entry of the U.S. military into the conflict was seen as another indication of Israel’s operational weakness. Despite extensive intelligence, defensive, and logistical support from Washington and some European countries, Israel’s ability to conduct the operation independently was called into question.

Analysts say the United States had hoped its military intervention would lead to Iran’s surrender. This notion was reflected in a recent note by Donald Trump, who called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” However, Iran’s direct attack on the U.S. “Al Udeid” base in Qatar not only thwarted this scenario but also created a new equation in the landscape of regional conflicts.

While Israel, from the fourth day of the war, had been attempting—through multiple intermediaries—to bring the conflict to an end, Iran’s strike on the American base altered Washington’s decision-making process. According to diplomatic sources, it was after this attack that the United States mobilized all its political resources to bring the war to a halt.

New images showing underground drone tunnels belonging to the IRGC Aerospace Force, 16 june 2025 / WANA News Agency

In summing up this event, what is emphasized is the failure to achieve the initial calculations of the opposing side: not only did the project to change Iran’s political system fail, but the country’s military and strategic capabilities were not weakened either.

Iran’s operation, which included 22 waves of targeted attacks on sensitive facilities and centers in areas under Israeli control, delivered heavy blows to the perception of power and survival of that regime. Contrary to Washington’s expectations, Tehran’s response was not passive; rather, for the second time since World War II, a regional country directly targeted a U.S. military base.

Regional analysts believe that the “strike for strike” equation is now effectively recognized, and this message has become clear to the opposing parties: any military or sabotage action against Iran will be met with a severe response.

According to experts, the most important factor in achieving victory in this confrontation was social cohesion and strategic unity within Iran. Ultimately, the warning about ongoing threats from Iran’s regional and global adversaries remains in place. The current situation necessitates that Iran remain on constant alert, with increasing defensive capabilities and political and social vigilance.

“Iran Is Our Soul” Gathering, June 2025 , social media/ WANA News Agency