LONDON - The escalating and reckless threat to annihilate a civilization as historic as Persia’s openly acknowledges that Donald Trump has utterly failed to achieve his objectives, despite employing every means at his disposal.

The catastrophic failure of the Isfahan operation proved to be the final breaking point. In this climate of fevered delusion, Iran’s proposals were accepted as a foundation for a potential agreement—a move born of sheer desperation after exhausting every possible means to achieve their desired ends.

The final attempt—a ground invasion—was trialed in Isfahan, with shocking results, including the destruction of aircraft. When combined with the repeated, unmet objectives of seizing highly enriched nuclear material, dismantling the missile arsenal, and confronting so-called “proxy” forces along with their support and funding, the outcome was total failure. It was at this juncture that despair peaked.

This culminated in the realization that reaching an agreement—and dealing with the new balance of power that actually exists on the ground—was the only viable path forward. These are the forces that now dictate reality. The U.S. and the Israeli occupation entity exhausted every available tool and achieved nothing. They belatedly grasped the irreversible stage reached by Iran and its allies—a sober acknowledgment that Iran is not Venezuela, that it cannot be cowed by threats, and that it is a nation that would choose death over surrender.
The conclusion has been reached that a return to war is not feasible, given the inability to define attainable objectives. Even if no agreement is reached by April 21, renewed conflict remains unlikely—a scenario that carries major repercussions for the American presence in the region. Having set out to confront Iran, the U.S. now finds itself a hostage within reach of Iranian influence at any moment.

This reality also poses a critical challenge for the states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf. They now face a decisive moment in determining their future direction: whether to undergo internal changes that threaten their traditional structures, or to align themselves with the new regional reality.

Allies will also have a major share in this outcome. In Lebanon, after witnessing the military capability of Hezbollah, that entered the war as a unified front in support of Iran, it became clear that these so-called “proxies” cannot be defeated. Despite overwhelming force and destruction, they were neither eliminated, not even in small Gaza, let alone Lebanon. Failure occurred across all fronts, reshaping the region. This will leave unanswered questions for the Israeli occupation entity, that will ultimately lead to the decline of its role. 

When Hezbollah is perceived as having successfully prevented the enemy from achieving any of its objectives—and is backed by Iran with all available means—the confrontation escalates from a local and regional conflict to one of international scope. Its inclusion in any agreement thus becomes a non-negotiable condition. This presents a rare model of allied relations that strategically encircles the Israeli occupation entity.

When Iran’s victory empowers its allies as a decisive factor, it prevents the isolation of any single front. The result is a comprehensive victory across all theaters: Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen—each reinforcing the others from a position of strength.

This dynamic may also precipitate a reduction in the direct American military presence in the region. The U.S. may seek to secure its relations with these emergent, powerful actors without relying on a direct military footprint—a presence that has proven incapable of protecting the region, or even the Persian Gulf states it was meant to defend.

The strategic setback will have wide-ranging repercussions. Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz has become a decisive instrument that halted the war, given its profound impact on the global economy and on the United States itself. Consequently, when objectives are reduced to merely securing an agreement over the Strait—an issue that was not even contested before the conflict—it underscores the failure of the entire campaign and the collapse of major American threats.

Al Jazeera columnist Andrew Mitrovica says, “Analysts now warn that the war meant to weaken Tehran may leave it stronger.  Andrew Mitrovica says Iran is winning because it adapts. 

 “Iran does not need air superiority to impose pressure. It needs endurance. Its ‘mosaic’ strategy — layers of command and decentralized power — means leaders can be killed, but the system survives. It turns vulnerability into resilience. It turns time into a weapon,” he notes.

Robert Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, also wrote an article in the New York Times on April 6 headlined “The war is turning Iran into a major world power”.

The Israel-U.S. war against Iran began on Feb. 28. 

 “Iran is far stronger than it was just 40 days ago. It is in control of 20% of the world’s oil. It is now an emerging fourth center of power. … The United States is on one side, and the rivals are China, Russia and now Iran,” Pape argues, adding, “If Iranian control over the strait persists for months or years, as I believe it may, it will drastically reshape the global order to the detriment of the United States.”

This outcome alone will significantly strengthen Iran’s position and enhance its global image, now thrust into the spotlight. Iran’s true reality has been laid bare—countering long-standing efforts to distort it—while the once-flawless image of the Israeli occupation entity has been tarnished worldwide. These shifts will lead to major, unpredictable consequences.

This conflict may rank among the most consequential in recent history, one from which Iran has emerged with minimal damage relative to the substantial strategic gains it has secured. Above all, it has been transformed into a major, rising global power.