Iran Survived the War as the US Moved Toward Ceasefire Talks
It is becoming increasingly clear to people around the world that the United States may not be achieving its goals in the conflict with Iran. This discussion is not only happening internationally, but also inside Washington DC itself.
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a military operation against Iran. The official objectives were direct and clear: destroy Iran’s nuclear program, weaken its military strength, and pressure the Iranian government into surrendering or collapsing.
Three months later, none of those goals appear to have been fully achieved.
Iran’s military is still operational, and instead of appearing defeated, Iran has entered negotiations while still holding significant influence and bargaining power.
What Happened During the Conflict?
For more than five weeks, the US and Israel carried out strikes across Iran. Nuclear facilities were targeted, military infrastructure was bombed, and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reportedly killed during the conflict.
US President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender through social media posts. Deadlines were announced for March 21, March 23, and later April 7. Iran ignored every one of them.
Eventually, the United States agreed to a ceasefire process reportedly mediated by Pakistan.
Many analysts argue that countries confident of victory usually do not rush toward ceasefire negotiations. Instead, they continue pushing military pressure. Critics say this raised questions about Washington’s actual position in the war.
The Strait of Hormuz Became the Turning Point
The most important development in this conflict has been the Strait of Hormuz.
This narrow waterway near Iran is one of the world’s most important oil routes. Before the war, nearly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil passed through it every day. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Iraq depended heavily on this route.
Iran later restricted passage through the Strait.
According to reports, vessels from countries viewed as friendly by Iran — including China, Russia, and India — were still allowed movement, while US-aligned shipping faced major risks and disruptions.
In response, Washington announced a naval blockade aimed at reopening the route through military pressure. Iran described that blockade as a violation of the ceasefire and warned of possible military retaliation.
Months later, the Strait remains heavily disrupted.
For many observers, this has become one of the biggest symbols of the conflict. Critics argue that despite being the world’s strongest military power, the United States has still been unable to fully restore normal shipping operations through one of the world’s most critical waterways.
Economic Impact Is Being Felt Worldwide
The consequences of the conflict have extended far beyond the Middle East.
Global fuel prices surged after disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. Supply chains were affected across multiple industries. Farmers faced rising fertilizer costs because many fertilizers rely on petroleum-based materials.
As transportation and manufacturing costs increased, food prices also began rising in many countries.
This economic pressure has not remained limited to the Gulf region. Its effects have spread into Asia, Europe, and North America, impacting ordinary people through higher living costs and rising energy prices.
Conflicting Narratives From Washington
US officials publicly insisted that America was winning the war.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the United States would continue operations until Iran was “totally and decisively defeated.” President Trump also claimed that Iran’s military had been destroyed and that the Strait of Hormuz had already reopened.
However, intelligence leaks and independent reports painted a different picture.
Several reports suggested that Iran still retained much of its missile capability and continued launching attacks against US-linked military targets across the region, including bases in Iraq and Syria.
This growing gap between public political statements and intelligence assessments raised further questions about the actual situation on the ground.
Even Pro-War Voices Are Raising Concerns
One of the most surprising developments came from voices traditionally supportive of aggressive US foreign policy.
The Atlantic published an article titled “Checkmate in Iran” written by Robert Kagan, a longtime American foreign policy strategist and one of the influential advocates of the Iraq War.
In the article, Kagan argued that the consequences of this confrontation could permanently weaken America’s influence in the region.
He wrote that Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz had strengthened its regional position while also increasing the influence of allies such as China and Russia.
According to him, the role of the United States in the region may now be significantly reduced.
When even long-time supporters of intervention begin expressing such concerns, many observers believe it reflects the seriousness of the situation.
Public Support for the War Continues to Decline
Recent opinion polls also suggest growing public dissatisfaction inside the United States.
Surveys published in May by NPR, PBS, and Marist showed that around 60 percent of Americans opposed the war, while only about one-third supported it.
Another poll conducted by YouGov found that only 13 percent of Americans believed the United States was winning the conflict. A much larger percentage believed the US was not winning and would not ultimately succeed.
For any government involved in a prolonged military conflict, declining public support creates additional political pressure.
Negotiations Continue As Both Sides Search for a Deal
As of May 23, 2026, negotiations between the United States and Iran are still ongoing, with Pakistan reportedly acting as a mediator.
The talks are focused on several major issues, including freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, reconstruction efforts, and the possibility of a long-term peace agreement.
President Trump recently stated that a deal has been “largely negotiated” and could eventually lead to the reopening of the Strait.
However, critics argue that reopening the waterway through negotiations — after months of military operations failed to fully secure it — would represent more of a diplomatic compromise than a clear military victory.
A Conflict That Changed Global Power Dynamics
The United States entered this conflict expecting a fast and overwhelming demonstration of military strength.
Instead, the result has been a prolonged standoff, economic disruption, damaged military infrastructure across the Middle East, and an unresolved crisis surrounding one of the world’s most important oil routes.
Many analysts believe Iran’s position strengthened not because it defeated the United States in a traditional battlefield sense, but because it managed to survive the pressure, continue resisting, and maintain enough leverage to force negotiations.
Whether history ultimately views this conflict as a strategic failure or a temporary setback for Washington will likely depend on how the negotiations unfold in the months ahead.
