The New Dark Age

Iran’s greatest strategic success is not defeating the United States or Israel but demonstrating — through a war that ended not in “unconditional surrender” but in a negotiated peace deal — that neither can unilaterally impose a new Middle Eastern order without Iranian consent.

The Failure of Coercive Regional Engineering

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched large-scale strikes against Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and destroying major military and government targets. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel and US military bases across the region, and by closing the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint through which roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes — triggering a global fuel crisis. The war that followed was the most direct military confrontation between the US and Iran in modern history.

Yet the outcome, announced on June 14 and set to be formally signed in Switzerland on June 19, falls well short of the war’s stated aims. The US and Israel had set out to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, deplete its ballistic missile stockpile, and create conditions for regime change in Tehran. The deal achieves none of these goals in any definitive sense. Instead, it ends hostilities, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts US oil sanctions, and initiates a 60-day window of nuclear talks with Iran’s new leadership, which is very much intact and its regional posture, however degraded, still standing.

While Iran suffered losses — the assassination of its supreme leader, the destruction of key nuclear and military facilities, and severe economic disruption — it is important to understand what Tehran nonetheless achieved. Iran did not simply absorb punishment passively. It imposed substantial costs on its adversaries: it struck Israeli territory with missiles and drones, closed one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors for months, targeted Gulf energy infrastructure, and forced the United States — the world’s pre-eminent military power — to negotiate a settlement rather than dictate terms. Washington’s decision to pursue a deal, mediated by Pakistan and brokered in part through Chinese diplomatic pressure, reflects the limits of what even overwhelming military force can accomplish when political objectives remain elusive.

The distinction matters because it reveals how the balance of power has evolved, even after a devastating military campaign. Iran is not emerging from this war as a triumphant power. But neither is it a vanquished one forced into unconditional surrender; the explicit demand Trump had made in March 2026. This is precisely what makes the current moment strategically significant. The central issue was never whether Iran could defeat the United States or Israel militarily. It plainly could not. The more important question was whether the United States and Israel could defeat Iran and redesign the Middle East without Iranian acquiescence. The peace deal, imperfect and incomplete as it is, suggests they cannot.

Despite the strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, Iran’s nuclear program was not destroyed. Even the most optimistic American assessments acknowledged only a delay of around two years, while other estimates were far more modest. Meanwhile, Iran retained enough of its regional network — in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen — to complicate Israeli security even after the war. And the ceasefire in the Lebanon conflict, reportedly included in the deal, was negotiated without Israeli participation. Tel Aviv, which launched the war alongside Washington, was excluded from the very talks that shaped its outcome.

Most importantly, the military campaign did not produce decisive political — or even military — outcomes. There was no strategic surrender, no comprehensive rollback of Iran’s deterrent posture, and no reshaping of the regional order on American or Israeli terms. Instead, Iran demonstrated that even in defeat, it retains enough coercive capability to make its exclusion from any regional settlement impossible.

A Fragmenting American-Israeli Consensus

A second major reason why a US-Israel-preferred regional order that marginalizes Iran cannot be imposed is the growing divergence between American and Israeli priorities themselves. For decades, the assumption of near-total strategic alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv shaped regional calculations. Yet the war and its diplomatic aftermath have exposed visible — and now structurally significant — differences in how both states understand escalation and its acceptable limits.

The clearest illustration of this divergence is Israel’s exclusion from the peace negotiations. The deal was brokered between Washington and Tehran, with Pakistan and China playing mediating roles. Israel, despite having initiated the conflict alongside the United States, was not at the table. The reported terms of the agreement do not achieve the goals of the war as Israel defined them.

Donald Trump’s approach throughout the conflict further underscored this divergence. Even before the war, Trump had publicly urged Netanyahu not to strike Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. During the war, Trump repeatedly emphasized his desire for a deal, set multiple deadlines for Iranian concessions, and ultimately accepted terms that fall short of the unconditional surrender he had initially demanded. For the United States, the costs of a broader and longer regional war — stretched military assets, disrupted global energy markets, and strained Gulf alliances — proved increasingly difficult to sustain. The Pentagon’s bases across the Gulf remained vulnerable; the Strait of Hormuz closure sent oil prices surging and rattled global markets.

Israel, however, operates under a different strategic logic. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot easily absorb an outcome in which Iran’s deterrence survives, its allied networks receive a ceasefire, and Washington negotiates the terms of regional stability without Israeli input. Israeli deterrence has historically depended on demonstrating overwhelming retaliatory capacity. A settlement that leaves these questions unresolved carries major implications for Israeli credibility and regional posture.

This divergence creates a structural tension between Washington and Tel Aviv that the peace deal has made more visible, not less. The United States prioritized bringing the war to a manageable close; Israel prioritized achieving the war’s stated objectives. Iran recognized this gap and used it to its advantage in the negotiations.

The Multipolar Middle East

The resulting dynamic has profound implications for regional order. During earlier phases of American dominance in the Middle East, military superiority often translated into political authority. The war with Iran and its negotiated conclusion suggest that this translation is no longer automatic. As such, the region appears to be entering a different phase: one in which multiple actors possess enough coercive and diplomatic capability to block one another’s preferred outcomes — such as Trump’s demand from Gulf states to sign Abraham Accord—even if none can impose decisive victories. Iran’s regional strategy reflects precisely this logic. Tehran did not need to defeat the United States militarily to succeed strategically. It merely needed to convince Washington that the costs of imposing a unilateral regional order are too high even for the US to pay. Iran’s strategic achievement, therefore, lies not in military superiority but in strategic denial, and in proving that this form of denial survives even a catastrophic military campaign.

This does not mean Iran is emerging as the region’s hegemonic power. Iran faces several challenges. But hegemonic dominance was never Tehran’s objective. Its strategy has always been centered on preventing others from achieving uncontested dominance, and on that metric, the war’s outcome, however painful, represents a form of strategic success.

Iran’s regional posture resembles a broader pattern increasingly visible across international politics: weaker powers developing sufficient asymmetric capabilities to deny stronger states decisive political outcomes. The objective is not victory in the traditional sense. It is survivability, leverage, and the ability to shape negotiations through persistent coercive pressure.

The peace deal announced on June 14 does not resolve the underlying tensions that produced the war. Nuclear talks are set to begin within 60 days, but whether they will produce a durable agreement remains deeply uncertain. Israel’s posture toward any settlement that leaves Iran’s regional influence intact will be a source of ongoing friction with Washington. And the structural conditions that make the Middle East ungovernable by any single power — American, Israeli, or Iranian — remain firmly in place.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel