Iran-Israel conflict: All parties claim victory, but who lost?

In the aftermath of one of the most volatile geopolitical escalations in recent Middle Eastern history, all three primary actors -- Iran, Israel, and the United States --have emerged declaring triumph. Iranians rallied in Tehran and other cities on Tuesday night to thank the country’s armed forces for valiantly fighting off the Israeli and American aggression and forcing them to unilaterally declare a ceasefire, Iranian state TV reported. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel “achieved a historic victory” that would “abide for generations” by removing “two existential threats — the threat of destruction via nuclear weapons and the threat of destruction via 20,000 ballistic missiles”. US President Donald Trump has said Iran's nuclear programme has been "set back decades", a day after he claimed to have brokered a truce between Iran and Israel, despite an early US intelligence assessment that US strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear programme and likely only set it back by months. Also, Iran is reported to have moved 400 kg of enriched uranium before the US strikes.

Though all the three parties have proclaimed victory, their gains appear precarious and their losses understated while the conflict has set a precedent for future clashes.

Iran

Iran’s regime responded to the joint strikes by organizing mass rallies in major cities, depicting the confrontation as a failed attempt by its adversaries to destroy the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty and deterrent capabilities. Ayatollah Khamenei praised the military for repelling aggression and protecting Iran’s nuclear dignity. The survival of the state and the rapid mobilization of nationalistic sentiment were leveraged to shore up domestic legitimacy at a time when the regime was already under significant internal pressure.

Yet the reality behind the optics is far less triumphant. The US and Israeli strikes, while limited in scope, targeted key nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, and significantly disrupted Iran’s enrichment capabilities. Israel also killed more than a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists. Analysts have confirmed the destruction of high-speed centrifuges and delays to uranium enrichment timelines. Intelligence assessments suggest Iran’s nuclear programme has been set back enough to impact Iran’s near-term ambitions.

It has come to light that over 400 kg 60%-enriched uranium was moved prior to the strikes. Western intelligence officials suggest this material is now unaccounted for, raising fears of secret storage or potential weaponization. This is enough to produce 10 nuclear bombs, analysts say. If true, this proves that Iran's nuclear programme has not been completely destroyed by the US and it can put it back. Despite a major onslaught by both the US and Israel, Iran has managed to keep its nuclear power dream alive. However, it may now be forced to pursue its nuclear ambitions more covertly.

Militarily, Iran’s vulnerabilities were laid bare. Despite investments in missile defenses and regional deterrents, Israel and the US penetrated key Iranian airspace and carried out precise strikes. Although Iran responded with a barrage of drones and missiles that caused casualties in Israel and damage to US bases in Iraq and Qatar, its counterattack was more symbolic than decisive. This showcased Iran’s ability to retaliate, but not to deter or prevent future escalations. However, Iran has demonstrated that it can penetrate Israel's famed air defence with its more powerful ballistic missiles. Politically, Iran escaped a regime-change bid by the US which would have led to the collapse of Khamenei's Islamic regime.

Israel
Prime Minister Netanyahu swiftly declared that Israel had eliminated two existential threats: Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons and its long-range ballistic missile infrastructure. The operation, named “Rising Lion,” was described by Israeli officials as its most significant air campaign. Backed by advanced Mossad intelligence and US logistical support, the strikes were both sophisticated and coordinated, targeting centrifuge bunkers, missile silos and suspected research labs as well as nuclear scientists.

The strikes did succeed in severely damaging key infrastructure. Israeli officials claim that underground facilities at Fordo and missile production centers in Khorramabad were hit, delaying Iran’s development of intercontinental delivery systems. In military terms, this is a short-term strategic win: Israel has bought time, potentially several years, and demonstrated its continuing ability to strike inside Iran, a deterrence message to Iran.

However, the strategic gamble comes at a cost. Iran’s retaliation showed that there are limits to the Israeli air defence system's effectiveness and if Iran wants it can hit targets in Israel at will. Israel is virtually a sitting duck for Iran's more advanced missiles.

Domestically, Netanyahu has used the operation to solidify his political standing, especially amidst ongoing corruption trials and coalition instability. The military success gives him a powerful narrative, but if Iran’s nuclear programme regenerates quickly or if the ceasefire collapses into further hostilities, that victory may begin to appear hollow.

The United States
Trump has claimed that the US has set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by decades and he personally brokered a truce between Iran and Israel. The image he presented was one of decisive military leadership followed by effective diplomacy. The reality, however, is more ambiguous.

From a military standpoint, the US played a limited role in the conflict by hitting only the underground nuclear sites with bunker-buster bombs. This demonstrated U.S capabilities without requiring ground force deployment. It also showed that the US can intervene in conflicts without getting drawn into them, a key goal for an American foreign policy still wary of extended entanglements in the region.

However, the strategic value of these actions is debatable. Intelligence reports contradict Trump’s claim of a decades-long nuclear setback to Iran, stating the damage likely delayed Iran’s nuclear programme by months or, at most, two years. The disappearance of enriched uranium and the continued functionality of some underground sites suggest that the operation, while impactful, was not comprehensive. This divergence between political rhetoric and intelligence findings may further erode US institutional credibility at home and abroad.

America’s traditional allies were also unsettled. France and Germany expressed concern about Washington’s escalation and warned of a new regional arms race.
Furthermore, the conflict showed that US troops and infrastructure in the Middle East remain vulnerable. Iranian shot missiles at several American military bases in the region, highlighting the risks of being drawn deeper into conflict. While Trump avoided a full-scale war, the ceasefire he brokered remains fragile, and any future skirmish could undo the political capital he claims to have gained.

Victories with losses
Iran, Israel, and the US each emerged from the confrontation with plausible claims of victory, yet none can genuinely assert a comprehensive or unqualified win. Iran demonstrated regime survival and strategic adaptability, but at the cost of nuclear progress and internal unrest. Israel delivered a tactical blow to a looming threat but now faces the risk of multi-front escalation. The US avoided boots on the ground while projecting strength, yet failed to produce a sustainable or fully credible outcome.