US-Iran ceasefire: Who really won and what’s next?

"A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again."

When Donald Trump issued this ominous warning the day before, the world paused. Markets froze, diplomats scrambled, and millions waited for what seemed like the brink of Armageddon. 

It was an unprecedented statement that crossed into the realm of annihilation, of targeting a 6000-year-old civilisation. It was, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has put it, "America's darkest hour." 

And yet, barely an hour before that deadline expired, Washington and Tehran agreed to a two-week ceasefire. Humanity let out a collective sigh of relief at the 11th hour, literally, and we became the first generation to wait the whole night for World War III, only to be notified that it has been postponed at the last moment. 

Now might be the good time to ask the fundamental question of who, if anyone, has actually won, and whether this fragile truce can hold. 

War of destruction, illusion of victory

For weeks, the war unfolded with a sense of inevitability, with airstrikes deep into Iranian territory, infrastructure reduced to rubble, and a steady stream of triumphant claims from Washington and Tel Aviv. 

By the numbers alone, it appeared decisive: thousands of strikes, key military installations degraded, and a leadership targeted with precision. 

Yet, as the smoke clears, a more complicated picture emerges in which destruction did not translate into control, and battlefield gains failed to deliver political outcomes. Iran's nuclear infrastructure remains partially intact, its regional networks unbroken, and its most potent strategic asset, the Strait of Hormuz, firmly under its grip. 

In a war that was supposed to coerce, deter, and ultimately reshape Iran by toppling its regime and dismantling its offensive power, the core objectives remain visibly unattained.

Then came the moment that crystallised the stakes. Behind the scenes, Iran's 10-point negotiation framework had already begun to shape the contours of the ceasefire, giving Tehran a degree of leverage that seemed improbable at the outset of the war. What began as a campaign to weaken Iran ended with Washington negotiating within parameters largely defined by its adversary.

The consequences extend far beyond the battlefield. Internally, the war has reshaped Iran's political landscape, consolidating power around a younger, more radical leadership emboldened by survival rather than chastened by defeat. 

The pro-democracy movements and civil dissent have been sidelined, if not entirely extinguished, by the unifying effect of external aggression. Regionally, the ceasefire remains precarious, with Israel continuing its campaign in Lebanon and raising the spectre of renewed escalation. 

The United States and Israel launched over 13,000 strikes by some estimates, targeting nuclear facilities, infrastructure, and leadership networks. Yet, despite the wholesale destruction, the fundamental objectives of Washington and Tel Aviv remain unresolved. In other words, the war has inflicted damage — but not delivered strategic closure.

Yet, President Trump was quick to declare success. In announcing the ceasefire, he claimed the United States had "met and exceeded all military objectives." But this assertion sits uneasily against battlefield realities.

Just weeks earlier, Israeli officials had claimed near-total air superiority, with up to 80% of Iran's air defences destroyed. Yet by the sixth week, American warplanes were reportedly being hit "with regularity," suggesting not collapse but adaptation.

Iran, far from capitulating, has demonstrated what military analysts describe as "asymmetric endurance" by absorbing initial damage while preserving its ability to retaliate and escalate selectively. 

This is the paradox at the heart of the conflict: the United States can dominate the skies, but it cannot dictate the outcome.

Iran's leverage: The 10-point framework

If the battlefield produced ambiguity, the negotiating table clarified one thing: leverage had shifted. Iran's 10-point proposal, apparently accepted by Washington as a "workable basis", outlined demands that would have been unthinkable weeks earlier.

These include full lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of US forces from the region, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damages and recognition of its nuclear programme under certain terms. Thus, the Iranians have leverage now in a way that they did not have before."

And that leverage rests on a simple reality: Iran has survived. That's how such a war of attrition works — who is the last man standing. 

The Strait as the ultimate bargaining chip

More than any missile or drone, the decisive factor in this war has been geography. Control over the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of global oil once flowed — has given Tehran unprecedented economic and strategic leverage. 

Even during the conflict, Iran has demonstrated its ability to regulate passage, impose tolls, and disrupt global markets. At one point, the cost of passage reportedly reached up to $2 million per vessel. 

This transforms the strait from a chokepoint into a weapon, far greater than any nuclear weapon. It is this leverage that forced Washington to negotiate. 

A threat that changed the war and America's image

Trump's "civilisation" remark may have achieved its immediate objective of forcing a pause. But its long-term consequences are far more complex. The threat was widely condemned, including within the United States. The whole sentiment can be summed up by Senator Lisa Murkowski's comment, "It cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage."

More broadly, it signals a shift in how American power is perceived. The United States, once seen as a stabilising force is now "shaking the foundations of the international order."

In attempting to coerce an outcome, Washington may have weakened its own credibility. And this would require quite the effort to rebuild it again. 

The unintended consequence: Iran's internal consolidation

Perhaps the most consequential outcome of the war lies not on the battlefield, but within Iran itself.

Before the conflict, the regime faced internal dissent, protests, and a fragile social contract. Yet external pressure has historically had a unifying effect — and this war appears no different. 

Behind the scenes, Iran's 10-point negotiation framework had already begun to shape the contours of the ceasefire, giving Tehran a degree of leverage that seemed improbable at the outset of the war. What began as a campaign to weaken Iran ended with Washington negotiating within parameters largely defined by its adversary.

Throughout the war, the dissidents rallied behind the regime to bolster their support. Even prominent anti-regime activists took visible leadership roles in resistance. Benjamin Netanyahu's idea that bombing Iran and killing its leaders would incite a popular uprising in Iran had its opposite effect now. 

A younger, more radical leadership — shaped by war rather than diplomacy—now emerges with renewed legitimacy.

In effect, US intervention may have achieved the opposite of its stated goal — strengthening the very system it sought to weaken. 

Israel's war, and the regional spillover

While Washington pauses, Israel's posture remains uncertain as Netanyahu has already said that Lebanon is out of the deal, where Israeli operations have already killed over 1,500 people and displaced 1.2 million. 

This raises a critical question: is the ceasefire truly regional, or merely bilateral? 

Apparently, Israel wants to make South Lebanon another Gaza Strip. If Israel continues its campaign, the risk of re-escalation remains high. Tehran's network of proxies — from Hezbollah to the Houthis — ensures that the conflict cannot be neatly contained. 

Will the ceasefire hold?

The ceasefire itself is fragile by design. Iran has made clear that this "does not mean the end of the war" and reserves the right to resume operations if its demands are not met. Markets may have reacted with relief — oil prices dropping by over 17%, equities rebounding — but underlying risks remain.

Therefore, safe to say, the ceasefire does not resolve all the underlying risks. The core issues like sanctions, military presence, regional influence are still unresolved.

Who won? A question without a simple answer

So who won?

For the United States, the ceasefire provides an off-ramp. It avoids escalation, stabilises markets, and offers a path to diplomacy. In that sense, it is a tactical success.

For Iran, however, the outcome may be strategically more significant. It has survived sustained bombardment, preserved regime continuity, strengthened internal cohesion, secured a negotiating framework on its own terms, demonstrated control over critical global chokepoints Most importantly, it has reshaped the balance of power.

What comes next

The next phase will likely depend on negotiations rather than military intervention.

Talks in Islamabad mediated by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, will attempt to translate a temporary ceasefire into a durable settlement. But the gap between positions remains vast.

The United States is unlikely to accept full Iranian control over Hormuz or a complete withdrawal from the region. Iran, emboldened by its performance, is unlikely to scale back its demands. Between these positions lies the space for diplomacy — and the risk of collapse.

If there is a lesson from this war, it is this that military superiority does not guarantee strategic success.

The United States and Israel have demonstrated unmatched destructive capability. But Iran has demonstrated something equally powerful — resilience. Iran has proved that you can pulverise a city, but you cannot subdue a people. 

That is the paradox now confronting Washington. The war could be started. It could be escalated. But ending it — on favourable terms — may prove far more difficult. And as the ceasefire clock ticks, the question is no longer whether the war can be won. It is whether it can truly be stopped.