War is scarcely measured in terms of conquering territories or destroying battlefields in modern geopolitics. It is frequently quantified by three interrelated variables: power, prestige, and perception. This has been vividly demonstrated by the Iran war just witnessed. Although there were initial claims of a landmark military campaign by Washington and Tel Aviv, meant to bring Tehran to its knees, the end result points to a much more complex and uncomfortable reality: that, in the strategic sense, Iran was neither a loser nor a winner. Instead, the war revealed not only the political, diplomatic, and reputational vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies but also altered perceptions of power in the region and internationally.

The size of the loss of Donald Trump can be traced to the day before the day of the ceasefire, as he said on Truth Social just two days ago that there would be no deal with Iran without unconditional surrender. Nevertheless, the last truce was not conditional on American conditions, but the Iranian ten-point program. Such words were quoted to include the right of Iran to proceed with its nuclear research, the military of the Strait of Hormuz, the withdrawal of the U.S troops in the Gulf and the removal of the sanctions. A country that conditions a ceasefire, is not giving away on core sovereignty, and is not giving up its strategic resources, can barely be described as defeated.

The event was summed up by former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who questioned whether it was Trump who first blinked, not Tehran. Washington could not fulfil his strategic goals, even though he was said to have tactically succeeded militarily. It was not the Iranians who toppled the regime. The American hands did not get hold of the secret enriched uranium reserves in Tehran. The American plea to fully open the Strait of Hormuz on the condition of international navigation was even rejected. Iran also welcomed the reopening of the waterway under military control.

The quick acceptance of the ceasefire by Trump seems to be heavily driven by domestic political needs. With the U.S. midterm elections around the corner, and people beginning to grow tired of inflation, economic stagnation and polarisation in society, the economic effects of the war were quickly becoming politically risky. The oil price increase and the decline in stock markets began to undermine popular opinion of the administration. As a person who initially adopted the escalation rhetoric, Trump quickly needed a way out. Washington........

© Eurasia Review