Donald Trump’s negotiation philosophy, described as “set maximal goals and apply continuous pressure,” formed the basis of the US strategy in its confrontation with Iran. The White House raised the bar of demands to regime change in Tehran, accompanying that with intense military pressure over roughly 40 days. However, the conflict quickly revealed a fundamental difference: the sides measured victory differently. For Washington, the criterion was economic indicators, while Tehran redefined success as the concept of “survival” and national resilience.
This difference manifested in the interpretation of the same facts. The US saw the collapse of the Iranian currency and market panic as signs of a gradual paralysis of the state. Iran, however, presented the economic downturn as a “forced detachment” from the global financial system—a necessary stage in strengthening sovereignty. After the ceasefire, Washington pointed to a 17% drop in oil prices as proof of its success in “taming” Iran and securing the Strait of Hormuz. In response, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council proclaimed: “Survival is victory,” turning the threat of collapse into a reason to celebrate national resilience.
Iranian propaganda presented the agreement reached as a historic victory, grounded in the supreme leader’s religious edict and in evidence of military-political superiority on the battlefield. Tehran claimed it had forced Washington to take a seat at the negotiating table in Islamabad and to back away from the threat of total annihilation. Despite American claims of eliminating command personnel and significantly reducing missile attacks, analysts note that these tactical successes did not achieve broader US strategic goals, such as denuclearization or regime change.
As the conflict unfolded, the gap between the parties’ initial objectives and the actual outcomes became increasingly apparent. The US began with demands to change the regime and dismantle the nuclear program, but ultimately tried to present securing the Strait of Hormuz as a victory. Statements by American officials were contradictory: the defense secretary spoke of achieving “all objectives,” while Trump at first declared that with the elimination of Ali Khamenei “it’s over,” but later cautiously noted the need to “finish the mission.” This rhetoric exposed a mixture of campaign slogans and complex military reality.
Iran’s key advantage was the strategic use of geography and proxy forces. The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and the activation of allies in Lebanon and Iraq allowed Tehran to impose significant economic and political costs on the world, demonstrating that control over territory offers more room for maneuver than technology alone. Ideologically, Iran turned to the “revolutionary street,” creating a narrative of popular epic and turning fear into national resistance, while Trump appealed to “Western reason,” speaking of protecting the economy and international navigation.
In the end, the White House realized that Iran’s criterion of success was socio-economic survival, and that continuing the conflict on the eve of elections could harm domestic stability in the US. The administration faced a difficult choice: accept Iran’s terms or plunge into an “endless war” of attrition. Pakistan’s mediation provided an acceptable way out, giving both sides a platform to declare a negative draw. Each side was able to present its version of events to domestic and international audiences. By choosing the diplomatic route, Trump in effect followed Winston Churchill’s quote: “Diplomacy is preferable to war.”
Comments on the News
What role and powers does Iran’s Supreme National Security Council have in shaping foreign policy and responding to crises? - The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) is the key coordinating body that defines strategy in national security, defense, and foreign policy. It is chaired by the president, but its decisions on critical issues (for example, international agreements or crisis responses) are subject to approval by the Supreme Leader. The council coordinates the actions of military, intelligence, and diplomatic agencies, making it the central body for crisis management and for shaping foreign policy within the overall ideological line of the Islamic Republic.
What is meant by the term “revolutionary street” in the Iranian political and ideological context? - The term “revolutionary street” (کوی انقلاب) symbolizes the broad segments of the population that remain faithful to the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It is not a physical place but a political-ideological concept denoting the mass support base of the system, including war veterans, Basij members (militia), conservative religious circles, and those who oppose Western influence. The “revolutionary street” is often contrasted with the “liberal” or “reformist street,” which is associated with demands for political and social change.
Which specific “proxy forces” in Lebanon and Iraq does Iran support, and how are they used in its regional strategy? - In Lebanon the key force is Hezbollah — a powerful Shiite political and military organization established with Iranian support in the 1980s. In Iraq, it is primarily a network of Shiite militias unified under the Popular Mobilization Forces (al-Hashd al-Shaabi), such as Kataib Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq. These forces are used by Iran as instruments of “strategic depth” to expand influence, deter adversaries (the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia), protect Shiite interests, and create zones of influence, allowing Tehran to act while minimizing direct military intervention.
Full version: أمريكا وإيران تعلنان الانتصار.. كيف صنع كل طرف سرديته بعد 40 يوما من القتال؟