Iran after 100 days of war: The triumph of survival
It has been 100 days since the United States and Israel attacked Iran in a coordinated campaign aimed at regime change. Since April, a tenuous
It has been 100 days since the United States and Israel attacked Iran in a coordinated campaign aimed at regime change. Since April, a tenuous ceasefire has been in place – one that has been regularly violated by exchanges of fire. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed while fighting in Lebanon continues. At this point, peace remains elusive as both sides’ objectives remain unfulfilled. Washington and Tel Aviv’s goal has been not just to eliminate the Iranian nuclear programme but also to degrade the Iranian security and military apparatus and thereby create space for internal political change. For Tehran, the main objective has been to preserve the governing system and ensure its continuity, regardless of the cost. In this sense, it sees itself as having the upper hand. Losses on both sides The war has taken the lives of more than 3,400 Iranian citizens, including dozens of senior leaders in the political and military spheres. It has made it clear that Iran is unable to protect its leadership, arsenal, or nuclear programme. Within the first two weeks of the conflict, Iranian missile and drone attacks decreased by 90 percent, as US and Israeli operations destroyed launchers faster than they could be replaced, revealing the limitations of a deterrent developed over two decades. The nuclear programme, already damaged in the 12-day war in 2025, was targeted with more strikes. Civilian infrastructure and energy facilities were also damaged and destroyed. The economy, which was already suffering before the start of the war, has taken another dip.
Meanwhile, the network of allied forces cultivated by Tehran across the region continues to weaken. By targeting sites in Gulf states hosting US forces, Iran has further alienated neighbours it had attempted to engage in the past. But the war has also brought significant losses for Iran’s adversaries. Iranian missiles and drones hit several US bases in the region, revealing the limits of US protection. Gulf states were drawn into a conflict they had not sought and were attacked on their own territory. The security guarantees underpinning their alignment with Washington appear less reliable than before. Thus, the most enduring effect of the war may be less the damage to Iran’s capabilities than the uncertainty introduced into the regional security architecture. From military weakness to economic leverage Within days of the US-Israeli attacks, Iran started restricting maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles approximately one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas. The US responded with an air campaign in March to reopen the waterway and, in April, imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports. Despite these efforts, the strait remains closed. Only a few vessels vetted by Iran have been allowed to pass. Diplomatic challenges have compounded the military situation. When Washington requested assistance from NATO and its European and Asian partners to secure the route, they declined. European governments characterised the conflict as outside their purview. For Tehran, this outcome demonstrated that the power which struck at the core of the Iranian state was unable to mobilise its allies to reopen a single shipping lane.
The BriefWire