The Winners and Losers of the US/Israel-Iran War

On the 40th day of the US/Israel-Iran war, which began with the aim of ending the conflict by eliminating the entire senior leadership of one side, a two-week ceasefire came into effect to allow for the discussion of both sides’ demands. By ‘both sides’, we mean the US on one side and Iran on the other. For some reason, although Israel is acting in concert with the US, its name is scarcely mentioned in the context of bringing the war to an end. This casts a significant shadow over the validity of the ceasefire and the agreement. Furthermore, when the war began—or rather, when the US/Israeli hegemony attacked Iran—negotiations between the parties were already underway. For this reason, whether the US/Israel will adhere to the ceasefire remains a separate mystery. Likewise, despite reports that “an agreement has been reached”, Iran is not hesitating to launch missiles at Tel Aviv. Perhaps Iran is sending a message to Israel not just with missiles, but saying, “I am still alive and standing; if you play games and claim an agreement whilst raining bombs down, your citizens will not be able to leave the shelters.” Israel, acting as if it were not a party to the ceasefire, continues to bomb Beirut. A ceasefire has been declared, yet the explosions and bombings continue unabated. Mutual distrust is at its peak.

It is only natural that a war which began strangely should have a ceasefire that is equally strange. Let’s see if there will be a genuine ceasefire and agreement. The US will not end this war without securing its hegemony. If it cannot win, its hegemony will end. It is one thing for both sides to declare victory, quite another to actually achieve it.

As no definitive outcome emerged from the struggle between asymmetrical powers, Iran put forward a list of 10 demands and the US a list of 15 demands, each entirely different from the other. These demands are incompatible with one another, and the likelihood of the other side accepting them is slim; they must somehow be mutually negotiated. It is another oddity to assume that maximalist demands will be accepted by the other side. Consequently, reaching an agreement appears difficult. Especially when both sides have claimed victory for themselves and attributed defeat to the other side, expecting an agreement to be reached easily would, frankly, be a great deal of optimism. Mutual declarations of “Hurrah, we’ve won, we’re winning!” are used by the parties, on the one hand, to manipulate their own domestic and international publics, whilst on the other hand, they highlight the reality that the course and outcome of the war remain uncertain. Until there is a full ceasefire or a written agreement—even if there are occasional pauses—we are witnessing a war that is far more likely to continue until one of the parties accepts defeat.

Well, setting aside all these statements laden with perception management, who are the winners and losers of this war based on the publicly available information and events we have?

Let us examine this.

In fact, the easiest way to identify the winner in this war is to identify the losers. If we identify and list the losers, the winners will emerge directly.

First, let’s look at the losers of the US/Israel-Iran war.

1. The US and Trump:

The US claims the Iranian regime has changed, but no regime has changed. The Revolutionary Guards and the religious leader, despite having rendered the entire top echelon ineffective, continue to govern the country.

The US, which protects the Gulf states, failing to stop Iran’s attacks could lead these countries to abandon the US and turn to other regional and global actors for their own protection, which would be a significant loss for the US.

Should Trump lose public support and his Senate majority in the elections scheduled for November this year, an impeachment process could begin, which could mark the beginning of the end for him.

On the other hand, allegations that Trump and his associates have gained unjustified windfalls through stock market manipulation are also worth investigating. It seems that whilst Trump is causing his country to lose out, he is enriching himself.

2. Israel and Netanyahu:

The Israeli public is demonstrating through protests that they do not wish to live with the war that Netanyahu has imposed upon them. The title of the world’s most unpopular country and leadership belonged to Russia and Putin following the Russia-Ukraine war that began in 2022. By 2026, Israel and Netanyahu, who began sharing this dubious distinction with the US and Trump, have failed to emerge victorious from this war, whatever they may do. A people in a democratic country who hear sirens every day and seek shelter must replace this government at the first election.

3. Gulf states backed by the US:

The Gulf states, rich in natural resources and relying on US protection, have seen in this war that there is no such thing as protection from across the ocean. They have surely realised the necessity of living in peace and harmony with their neighbours. On the other hand, in the coming period, these countries may seek the support of another superpower and one or more regional powers instead of the US; whether with the US or with someone else, this would mean their defeat.

4. Iran and its leadership:

Some commentators argue that Iran has won, but I do not share this view. The extent to which Iran’s demands are met will clarify far more clearly whether it has won or lost.

Iran’s missile capabilities, nuclear facilities, navy and army have suffered significant damage in this war. Human casualties are also undeniable. The regime’s leadership was neutralised almost from the outset of the war. Iran currently finds itself in a state of limbo—neither fully functioning nor completely collapsed—under the leadership of a figure whose whereabouts and identity, if revealed, would likely render them ineffective. Returning to its former state will not be so straightforward. To say the regime is standing firm would be inaccurate, yet to claim it has collapsed is also incorrect. Iran is in a difficult position. To portray a country in this state as having ‘won’ is the desire of the anti-US Eurasianist school of thought, but unfortunately, it is not realistic.

Iran is demanding war reparations. It also wants to charge a transit fee for every ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz. It is said that the fee per ship is 2 million dollars. Iran, which does not want oil to be bought and sold in dollars, is demanding dollars for the transit fee—a move that brings to mind the phrase, ‘What a glaring contradiction!’ What else is this but an assessment of the dollar’s value? It seems that the Iranian people’s inability to free themselves from this repressive and authoritarian regime—which secretly supports the US and has not benefited from democracy—and their failure to become a democratic, secular, and social state governed by the rule of law is the greatest loss for them.

There are certainly important lessons to be learnt by the other two losers, Israel and the US, as well. If the Israeli people oust Netanyahu and the American people oust Trump from power, they will have the honour of saving both their own countries and the entire world from these madmen.

Ultimately, rather than the approach that “the US and Israel lost, Iran won”, all three states involved in the war are losers.

So who are the winners then?

1. The Spanish people and government, who demonstrated their resolve not to support the US in this war, have won the hearts of the people and emerged victorious.

2. Pakistan, which took the role of mediator for an agreement and ceasefire from Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, has also entered the list of winners with its high level of effectiveness.

3. Azerbaijan and its government, which did not hesitate for a moment to send humanitarian aid to Iran, have also earned praise, refused to fall for manipulation, and emerged as a winning nation.

4. The man playing the kemenche amidst the ruins of a music school in Iran and the children swinging on swings amidst the rubble in Gaza are the greatest winners. It is not the arsonists or the destroyers, but those who resist and endure; not unjust hegemony, but just humanity that will ultimately prevail.

There are also those whose status as winners or losers is not entirely clear. Depending on future events, these countries could be classified as either winners or losers:

1. China and Russia, which lack the power to halt the US’s unlawful and illegitimate attacks, yet are said to have indirectly contributed to Iran’s survival and the US’s losses; thus, neither losers nor winners.

2. Countries that have strongly criticised US/Israeli attacks, have adopted a correct policy of not intervening directly on either side of the war, yet have not followed Azerbaijan’s example—that is, have not sent humanitarian aid to neighbouring Iran or have delayed doing so, and have been unable to stop the Israeli massacre in Gaza, and thus unable to make any show of force; despite not intervening in the war, Turkey has seen its $50 billion reserves dwindle, making it one of the nations most negatively affected economically by the conflict, yet unable to implement any tangible measures to mitigate the adverse impact on its people. Consequently, Turkey is neither a winner nor a loser.

In short; any form of peace, ceasefire or agreement is better than war. The triumph of peace at home and abroad would be the greatest gain for the whole world. The finest gift to be given to today’s pretentious leaders is the book *Nutuk*, written by Atatürk, the true leader who championed the motto ‘Peace at Home, Peace in the World’.

After all this realism, let us indulge in a little utopia.

In place of the outdated old world order, a new world order is now required. In this new order, the goal of all nations and their leaders must be to create a new world where peace and justice prevail, not war and injustice; where the rule of law prevails, not the law of the strong; and where humanity lives with dignity, in a manner that upholds rights, law and justice.

I hope it will come to pass.