In the annals of modern military and political history, wars are usually defined by shifts in borders, the number of casualties, or the signing of treaties. There is, however, a rarer kind of war—one in which a nation is reshaped within the crucible of an illegal and unprovoked attack. The consequences of the recent war that broke out against the Islamic Republic of Iran highlighted a truth that Washington and Tel Aviv do not wish to admit: despite immense military pressure, an extensive psychological campaign, and repeated declarations of victory, the attackers failed to achieve even one of their strategic objectives.
Compromises between the US and Iran to reach an agreement
In the outline of the final agreement, the compromises to which the once-superpower, America, was subjected are clearly visible. Specifically, the US undertakes the obligation to: release $24 billion of IRI assets; return half of this money (approximately $12 billion) before the signing of the agreement; lift sanctions against Iran's oil industry and not impose new ones; refrain from gathering forces in the Middle East; and, together with its allies, present a project for the restoration of the Iranian economy worth at least $300 billion. In turn, Iran confirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and pledges not to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the Iranian missile program was excluded from the agenda of negotiations with the United States, meaning Iran continues its missile program freely.
The emergence of a power
What emerged from this third war in less than a year was not the collapse or fragmentation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as Western analysts and policymakers had predicted. On the contrary, a more cohesive, battle-hardened, and decisive state emerged, which now acts from a position of unquestionable power, enhanced deterrence, and increased regional influence.
The US and Israel designed this war as a decisive blow that would lead to immediate collapse. However, the war evolved into the background against which Iran emerged as a regional superpower. This is not just a story of survival, but a narrative of strategic reversal, where the hunter turns into the prey and the one who designed the destruction finds themselves desperately looking for an exit. As we reflect on the events that led to the ceasefire and a potential agreement, we are not just witnessing the end of an imposed war. We are witnessing the transformation of the West Asian region and, from the perspective of the text, the definitive end of American hegemony.
The anatomy of a defeated opponent
During the last year, and especially during the recent war that, according to the text, was imposed on Iran, the world watched a coalition of attackers, led by the American regime and aided by the Zionist entity, unleash what it considered a deadly triple attack: two comprehensive military operations, framed by a period of internal subversion or a "quasi-coup." Their goal was the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the dismemberment of its territory, and the looting of its wealth. However, the opponent failed catastrophically. It failed despite mobilizing its entire arsenal—military, economic, and psychological—against an Iran that is presented as strong, united, cohesive, and resilient.
Contrary results
The Iran that emerged from this third imposed war differs significantly from the Iran that entered it. The ultimate deterrent against future attacks is no longer just a stockpile of missiles or a nuclear program, but the proven and living reality of national unity. The opponent bet on internal division but was confronted with internal rallying. As a result, the American president and his inner circle appear trapped in a labyrinth of reflections, promoting exaggerated and empty claims that international public opinion no longer seems to believe. The reality on the ground, visible to every observer from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, speaks louder than any propaganda spectacle manufactured by the opponent. The fact is that America failed to demonstrate even one tangible achievement from this war. Its narrative resembles a castle built on sand, which the tide has already swept away.
From confrontation to begging
The most humiliating indicator for the American regime during this period was, according to the text, its repeated retreats in the face of a possible reignition of the conflict. The opponent turned to negotiations not because of any moral awakening, but due to defeat and the fear that it would receive even more crushing blows. If victory over Iran on the battlefield were possible, the United States would never have accepted a ceasefire. Their declared goal was the destruction of the Islamic Republic, and abandoning this goal in order to choose a diplomatic exit does not constitute an act of state strategy, but an admission of a deadlock.
America launched an unprovoked and illegal war with the aim of forcing Iran into submission and, from the text's perspective, ends the war by handing the initiative to Iran. This reversal of fortune is the central analytical conclusion of the 24th of Khordad. The US, which sought salvation through destruction, now seeks "salvation from war through begging diplomacy." It is worth carefully examining this American retreat to understand how Iran allegedly forced a superpower into capitulation.
The reversal of power dynamics in Hormuz
The US began the war with the goal of destroying Iran and dismantling its territory. Today, they are "begging Iran to return the Strait of Hormuz to its pre-war status." The fact itself, it is argued, captures the reversal of the situation. The attacker now appears as the one who is asking. Iran not only did not lose an inch of land, but the arrogant attacker never dared to set foot on Iranian soil—except, it is claimed, to leave humiliated, a fact which, according to the article, was recorded on the plains of Isfahan, where it suffered a historic rout.
A new and permanent reality seems to have been formed. This means that Iran has integrated the Strait of Hormuz into its sphere of power as a strategic weapon, capable of transitioning from a security situation to a state of automatic activation at any time, should circumstances require it. In the event of any future attack, energy markets, maritime trade routes, insurance systems, and global economic confidence will be affected, as Iran has warned.
The Resistance Front
Perhaps the most impressive change concerns the Axis of Resistance. During the "silent phase" of the war front, America arrogantly demanded that Iran distance itself from Hezbollah and cut off all political, economic, and military support to its regional allies. Iran not only refused to comply with these demands but today is the one forcing America to restrain its "rabid dog"—the Zionist regime in Lebanon. This is a tectonic shift in the regional balance of power.
A superpower presented as declining is now forced by the rising Iran to stop a war in a third country in order to rescue its own exit strategy from a dangerous quagmire it created itself. Iran's status as a power is proven not by what happens within its borders, but by its ability to impose terms on a battlefield hundreds of kilometers away. American power projection in West Asia was until recently considered an unquestionable reality. Today, however, the region is witnessing the gradual erosion of this dominance and the emergence of a new balance of power. The illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory is not ending thanks to European diplomacy, but because Tehran exerted suffocating pressure on Washington.
The nuclear issue: From destruction to the weakening of demands
America's military strategy has been largely consistent. During the 12-day war last year and the Ramadan war this year, it bombed nuclear facilities and infrastructure, repeatedly claiming that it had destroyed Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Today, according to the text, this same America is forced into a full retreat. It now asks Iran to allow—under the supervision of the IAEA—the dilution of nuclear materials within Iranian territory. More importantly, the United States is said to have been forced to recognize Iran's right to uranium enrichment and its nuclear needs as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The only argument remaining for the opponent is Iran's commitment not to build nuclear weapons. However, Iran, as the article notes, has been making this position for years. Therefore, this is not an American achievement but a long-standing Iranian position. Furthermore, this specific commitment is considered reversible. If the opponent violates its obligations—as, according to the text, has happened repeatedly in the past—then this commitment ceases to be valid. The opponent, it is argued, exchanged the substance of its war goals—the destruction of facilities—for a rhetorical ghost: a promise that had already been given.
The broken shackles of sanctions
For decades, successive American administrations imposed every form of unjust, illegal, and draconian sanctions on the Iranian people. These economic sanctions were one of Washington's key pressure tools against Iran, with the ultimate goal of economic collapse and, through it, the political subjugation of the country. After the military, communication, and symbolic defeats that, according to the article, it suffered, America is now forced to commit to the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, in any form.
Even if this commitment is not kept, the image itself, according to the text, reveals who is the winner and who is the loser. The loser is the one who promises to lift sanctions in exchange for the other's survival. The winner is the one who survived—and now holds the means of discipline. If America defaults on its commitments once again—a possibility the article does not rule out—then the Strait of Hormuz will return as a lever of pressure against it, while Iran's commitment not to weaponize its nuclear program will cease to exist.
War reparations: The irony of billions
There is a stark irony in the economic outcome of this conflict. Trump had publicly humiliated Barack Obama, accusing him of sending a billion dollars to Iran after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. Today, to extricate himself from the quagmire into which he led himself, Trump appears to have committed to amounts hundreds of times greater than those Obama was obliged to allocate to Iran.
These post-war economic arrangements are presented as a reversal of historical power relations. The idea that the opponent, after seeking to weaken Iran through bombing and bloodshed, is now facing pressure to contribute to its economic recovery is presented as proof of strategic resilience. Billions of dollars, the article concludes, will begin to flow into Iran from the very first moment the end of the war is announced. The opponent who appeared with the goal of looting and seizing ends up emptying his own pockets. This is the price he is called to pay for resorting to reckless military adventurism.
Iran's inherent power
The guarantor of America's commitments is not its good faith—and it never was. The real guarantor is Iran's own inherent power: the Strait of Hormuz, its defensive military capabilities, the united and resilient Resistance Front, a people in a state of mobilization, and the sound calculations of its officials. These elements, it is argued, consolidate the opponent's humiliation. The political defeat is nothing but the official ratification of the military defeat it had already suffered on the battlefield. Negotiations are not presented as an alternative to resistance, but as tools made possible thanks to resistance. Diplomacy only yields results when it is based on battlefield power and a proven deterrence capability.
The trajectory of collapse
The American empire has entered the beginning of its path toward decline and collapse. The Doctrine of the Zionist regime has also begun its own journey toward disintegration earlier than expected. In reality, the gradual erosion of American hegemony is linked, according to the same analysis, to Israel's ever-increasing strategic vulnerability. The accounts remain open: from the blood of the Iranian leader, to the senior commanders, the sailors of the Dena frigate, and the children of Minab and Lamerd, the free peoples of the region and the resistance movements still have many unsettled scores.
This is not the final victory, but a stage of a broader process. Greater humiliations for the US still lie ahead. After all, America appeared with the goal of destroying a sovereign and independent state, yet it was eventually forced to legitimize and recognize the superpower status of that state. The US that sought to impose yet another illegal blockade was forced to turn into a beggar for the reopening of a sea passage. The opponent who attempted to dismantle a peaceful and legitimate nuclear program was compelled to recognize Iran's right to uranium enrichment. This victory is not presented as a result of magic or a miracle, but as the product of a solid wall of resistance and as a revelation that Iran's hidden capabilities are much greater than those already manifested. The opponent thought it was facing a paper tower and found itself confronted with an entire "mountain range."
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments