Three Analysts Dissect How Iran Turned Defence into Victory
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA — Not all wars produce a winner. Some instead expose the flaws of power itself. In the Middle East today, what is visible is not a resounding victory, but cracks in claims of superiority, in promises of strategy, and in the old belief that military might can force history to bend to one’s will.
The announced ceasefire does not come as a sign of victory, but more like a breathing pause for the exhausted actors. The blasts have indeed subsided, but the questions have hardened: how could a large-scale military operation designed with high precision fail to produce clear political results? In the global power rooms, the answer to that question is starting to feel uncomfortable.
It is at this point that the Iran war changes meaning. It is no longer just a conflict between nations, but a test of the world’s power architecture. Because when a great power fails to achieve its goals, what is at stake is not only victory on the battlefield, but legitimacy on the global stage.
In David Narmania’s analysis in RIA Novosti, that failure is dissected directly. He asserts, “Washington has not achieved a single one of its goals, while Iran has obtained additional sources of income.” The measure of victory, according to him, is not in the damage inflicted, but in achieving strategic objectives, and it is at that point that the United States is judged to have lost its footing.
The goals announced from the outset—stopping the nuclear programme, regime change, and crippling the proxy network—have never truly been realised. Iran remains standing with a relatively intact power structure, even still able to maintain its military capacity. In the geopolitical framework, failures like this are rarely stated openly, but their impact is felt tangibly.
Muhittin Ataman in Daily Sabah expands on that picture. He writes, “Both aggressors did not achieve their goals. Iran did not surrender, its regime did not fall.”
Indeed, external pressure has instead driven internal consolidation in Iran. This phenomenon reminds us that in many cases, external military intervention actually strengthens the domestic cohesion of the attacked party.
However, the most significant consequence of this war is not just about Iran surviving, but about America starting to lose something more fundamental: credibility.
Ataman bluntly states, “The biggest loss for the US is in terms of credibility.” In a world built on a network of alliances and trust, the erosion of credibility is a long-term strategic loss that is difficult to recover.