In the early hours of the morning of Feb 28, the skies over several Iranian provinces were lit up by massive US and Israeli attacks. What was initially planned as a lightning-fast and limited operation to change the regional security equation turned into one of the longest, most complex, and most costly direct confrontations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States in decades.
Publish dateMonday 15 June 2026 - 12:18
Story Code : 357918
Now that the two sides have reached the final text of an agreement to end months of regional conflict, and its signing ceremony is scheduled to be held in Geneva, Switzerland on June 19, 2026, it is an opportune time to assess the consequences, achievements, and lessons of this war. The agreement, brokered by Pakistan and with the cooperation of Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, is called the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
This conflict was not just a military battle; it was also a comprehensive test to measure the deterrence power, crisis management capacity, social resilience, and the ability of countries to resist external pressures. An analysis of the 110-day process of the war shows that many of the initial calculations about the possibility of imposing military will on Iran did not match the realities on the ground, and this changed the regional and international equations in such a way that at the end of the war, the balance of power underwent changes that few had previously predicted.
1. Strategic miscalculation; the blitzkrieg turned into a war of attrition
The first and perhaps most important lesson of this war was the failure of the “blitzkrieg victory” theory. In the early days of the conflict, many Western observers thought that the massive attacks by the United States and Israel could achieve their declared goals within a few weeks; but the course of developments on the ground determined a different path.
The expansion of the conflict, the activation of multiple regional fronts, and the entry of various actors into the scene transformed the war from a limited operation into a comprehensive crisis. Among them, what was most striking was Iran’s ability to continue the war beyond the time frame that the attackers had planned for it. The political, economic, and security costs of the war increased significantly for all parties involved. According to a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the direct military cost of this war has been estimated at more than $78 billion for the United States until the ceasefire and about $25 billion for Iran.
What attracted the most attention of analysts was the attackers’ inability to achieve their lightning-fast and predetermined goals. In contrast, Iran showed that it could increase the costs of the war to a level that would make it uneconomic for the other side to continue. Iran’s continued ability to respond and the expansion of the scope of the war’s consequences changed the initial equations and provided the basis for a revision of the other side’s calculations. The most important message of this part of the war is that in the current conditions of West Asia, any planning for a short, low-cost war will face serious challenges. The 110-day experience showed that Iran’s diverse networks of power and strategic depth have the capacity to transform a limited crisis into an attritional confrontation a capacity that neither the United States nor Israel have been able to neutralize.
2. Deterrence in Action; Mutual Costing Replaces Total Destruction
The second key lesson of this war is the evolution of the concept of deterrence in the 21st century. In the past, many military strategies were based on the complete destruction of the enemy’s capabilities and the imposition of absolute defeat; but the developments of the recent war showed that deterrence has become more dependent than ever on the ability to impose mutual costs and in this arena, Iran was able to define the equation in such a way that the aggressor cannot achieve its goals.
Although both sides suffered significant losses, Iran’s ability to continue to respond and maintain some strategic capabilities prevented the enemy from fully imposing its will. At the height of the conflict, the 34-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted the supply of 17 million barrels of oil per day and pushed the price of Brent crude to $147 per barrel a figure that demonstrated Iran’s ability to tie global energy security to the fate of the battlefield. At the same time, Iran’s continued ability to respond and maintain some of its deterrent capabilities demonstrated that even under widespread pressure, the power components of a regional player with this level of resilience cannot be completely eliminated. In today’s world, the ability to disrupt the energy markets, economy, and strategic calculations of the other side have become as important as military power. Iran proved in this war that it can turn this ability into an effective tool for redefining the balance of power. Deterrence is no longer simply about the number of missiles and equipment, but also about the capacity to withstand and impose costs on the other side. For this reason, one of the most important results of the recent war was that the concept of military victory also changed, and Iran played a key role in bringing about this change.
3. The challenge of managing allies; a sign of a shift in the global balance of power
The third lesson of this conflict concerns the gradual change in the structure of power in the world - a change that ultimately benefited independent and resilient actors in the region. The course of political and field developments showed that even great powers face limitations in fully managing the behavior of their regional allies and partners.
Historically, perhaps the most important achievement of this war for non-Western actors is that the international system is moving more toward multipolarity than ever before, and regional actors have gained a more prominent role in resolving crises. In this emerging order, Iran has been able to establish its position not as an actor watching developments from the outside, but as an activist changing the equations in its favor.
An examination of the course of the recent war shows that the balance of power is shifting along several axes – axes that are all moving in favor of actors like Iran:
The conflict pattern: the increasing difficulty of conducting short, low-cost wars and the forced reality of attrition battles in which Iran specializes.
Deterrence measurement: the increasing importance of the ability to impose costs on the other side – an area in which Iran has shown great potential.
International management: the expanding role of regional powers in mediating crises, which effectively reduced the traditional influence of the United States.
The national power component: the increasing importance of social cohesion and domestic resilience – the very component that Iran demonstrated best in this war.
4. Domestic cohesion and resilience; a weapon beyond military arsenals
One of the most important and yet least seen dimensions of this war was the role of social cohesion and domestic stability in crisis management. The 110-day battle was not just a military confrontation; It was also a test of the resilience of society, the capacity of government institutions, and the capacity to manage difficult situations a test that Iran successfully passed.
The experience of this period showed that in conditions of external pressure, social solidarity, public trust, the continuity of public services, and the ability to maintain order and stability constitute an important part of national power. An analysis of the developments of the past months shows that despite heavy human, economic, and military losses including the martyrdom of dozens of senior military and scientific officials the main structures of governance and social life in Iran continued to function, and widespread instability was prevented. This was while the enemy had planned a significant part of its strategy based on Iran’s internal collapse.
According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency and unclassified assessments by Western intelligence agencies, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite enduring these strategic blows, not only did not collapse, but was able to maintain the relative coherence of its governing institutions. The continued functioning of Iran’s political, economic, and social structures during the war played an important role in overcoming difficult circumstances and maintaining bargaining power in the subsequent stages a factor that ultimately brought Iran to a stronger position at the negotiating table.
National power is not limited to missiles, fighter jets, and military equipment; rather, the ability of a society to maintain cohesion, continue normal life, and overcome crises is also considered part of a country’s strategic power. Iran proved in this war that it has not only maintained this component of power, but has turned it into one of its main trump cards against the enemy.
5. The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding; A confirmation of the success of Iranian diplomacy in the shadow of the resistance
After 110 days of conflict, the parties finally reached the final text of the agreement on 22 Joza 1405, and the signing ceremony of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding is scheduled to be held in Geneva, Switzerland on (19 June 2026). But what is remarkable about this agreement is not that the war ended, but rather the circumstances under which it ended.
Rather than being a comprehensive and lasting peace, the Islamabad Memorandum is a framework for de-escalation and the beginning of new talks; a framework in which Iran was able to sit at the negotiating table without accepting military defeat. It is important to emphasize that this agreement is an “internationally supervised ceasefire”; a moment between war and peace. But its strength for Tehran is that it was reached at a point when the enemy had failed to achieve its initial stated goals. The agreement is being signed at a time when Iran had shown that it could continue the war, but the enemy preferred to return to the path of diplomacy a development that many see as a victory for Iran’s active diplomacy over the strategy of maximum pressure.
According to the unpublished text of the Islamabad Memorandum, the parties have committed to begin negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, the status of sanctions, and security arrangements in the Persian Gulf within the next 60 days. The important fact is that before the war, the other side did not want negotiations without preconditions; but after 110 days of field resistance, it is now demanding the start of dialogue.
From the perspective of many analysts, the parties’ reaching a negotiating path after more than three months of conflict shows that a military solution alone has failed to achieve the desired goals and that diplomacy has once again become an inevitable option – with the difference that Iran is now sitting at the negotiating table with a fuller hand than before. The success or failure of the Islamabad Memorandum will have a direct impact on the future of regional security, but what seems certain so far is that Iran has managed to redefine the path of diplomacy to its advantage without military defeat and while maintaining its tools of pressure.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
The war showed that the strategy of short, low-cost wars faces serious challenges, that deterrence is more than ever based on mutual cost-sharing, that the role of regional actors in crisis management has increased, and that social cohesion remains one of the most important components of national power – and that Iran was able to perform in all these areas that changed the equations in its favor.
The five main lessons of this war for regional and global actors are:
1. The failure of the lightning victory hypothesis against an actor with strategic depth and resistance networks – a failure that Iran brought about.
2. The transformation of the concept of deterrence from complete annihilation to mutual cost-cutting – an arena in which Iran became a decisive regional power.
3. The increasing role of regional and emerging powers in international crisis management – a change that naturally elevated Iran’s position in the international system.
4. The importance of social cohesion and domestic resilience the very component that saved Iran from the collapse that the enemy predicted.
5. The shift of competition from the battlefield to the diplomatic arena an arena in which Iran entered with full hands after 110 days of resistance.
Now that the flames of conflict have subsided and the path to diplomacy has reopened, the most important question is not which side had the upper hand on the battlefield – the answer to that question gradually became clear during the 110-day war. Rather, the main question is: will regional and global actors use the lessons of this crisis to prevent future conflicts, or will they be forced to accept a new reality: a balance of power that has, willy-nilly and largely as a result of Iran’s actions shifted in Tehran’s favor?
The results of this war were a test of deterrence capacity, national resilience, and the extent to which hard and soft power can be effective in the new global equations. What seems certain so far is that Iran not only emerged victorious from this test, but also further consolidated its place in the changing regional order. This new reality, whether accepted by other actors or not, will become one of the determining factors in the West Asian equations in the coming years.
This conflict was not just a military battle; it was also a comprehensive test to measure the deterrence power, crisis management capacity, social resilience, and the ability of countries to resist external pressures. An analysis of the 110-day process of the war shows that many of the initial calculations about the possibility of imposing military will on Iran did not match the realities on the ground, and this changed the regional and international equations in such a way that at the end of the war, the balance of power underwent changes that few had previously predicted.
1. Strategic miscalculation; the blitzkrieg turned into a war of attrition
The first and perhaps most important lesson of this war was the failure of the “blitzkrieg victory” theory. In the early days of the conflict, many Western observers thought that the massive attacks by the United States and Israel could achieve their declared goals within a few weeks; but the course of developments on the ground determined a different path.
The expansion of the conflict, the activation of multiple regional fronts, and the entry of various actors into the scene transformed the war from a limited operation into a comprehensive crisis. Among them, what was most striking was Iran’s ability to continue the war beyond the time frame that the attackers had planned for it. The political, economic, and security costs of the war increased significantly for all parties involved. According to a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the direct military cost of this war has been estimated at more than $78 billion for the United States until the ceasefire and about $25 billion for Iran.
What attracted the most attention of analysts was the attackers’ inability to achieve their lightning-fast and predetermined goals. In contrast, Iran showed that it could increase the costs of the war to a level that would make it uneconomic for the other side to continue. Iran’s continued ability to respond and the expansion of the scope of the war’s consequences changed the initial equations and provided the basis for a revision of the other side’s calculations. The most important message of this part of the war is that in the current conditions of West Asia, any planning for a short, low-cost war will face serious challenges. The 110-day experience showed that Iran’s diverse networks of power and strategic depth have the capacity to transform a limited crisis into an attritional confrontation a capacity that neither the United States nor Israel have been able to neutralize.
2. Deterrence in Action; Mutual Costing Replaces Total Destruction
The second key lesson of this war is the evolution of the concept of deterrence in the 21st century. In the past, many military strategies were based on the complete destruction of the enemy’s capabilities and the imposition of absolute defeat; but the developments of the recent war showed that deterrence has become more dependent than ever on the ability to impose mutual costs and in this arena, Iran was able to define the equation in such a way that the aggressor cannot achieve its goals.
Although both sides suffered significant losses, Iran’s ability to continue to respond and maintain some strategic capabilities prevented the enemy from fully imposing its will. At the height of the conflict, the 34-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted the supply of 17 million barrels of oil per day and pushed the price of Brent crude to $147 per barrel a figure that demonstrated Iran’s ability to tie global energy security to the fate of the battlefield. At the same time, Iran’s continued ability to respond and maintain some of its deterrent capabilities demonstrated that even under widespread pressure, the power components of a regional player with this level of resilience cannot be completely eliminated. In today’s world, the ability to disrupt the energy markets, economy, and strategic calculations of the other side have become as important as military power. Iran proved in this war that it can turn this ability into an effective tool for redefining the balance of power. Deterrence is no longer simply about the number of missiles and equipment, but also about the capacity to withstand and impose costs on the other side. For this reason, one of the most important results of the recent war was that the concept of military victory also changed, and Iran played a key role in bringing about this change.
3. The challenge of managing allies; a sign of a shift in the global balance of power
The third lesson of this conflict concerns the gradual change in the structure of power in the world - a change that ultimately benefited independent and resilient actors in the region. The course of political and field developments showed that even great powers face limitations in fully managing the behavior of their regional allies and partners.
Historically, perhaps the most important achievement of this war for non-Western actors is that the international system is moving more toward multipolarity than ever before, and regional actors have gained a more prominent role in resolving crises. In this emerging order, Iran has been able to establish its position not as an actor watching developments from the outside, but as an activist changing the equations in its favor.
An examination of the course of the recent war shows that the balance of power is shifting along several axes – axes that are all moving in favor of actors like Iran:
The conflict pattern: the increasing difficulty of conducting short, low-cost wars and the forced reality of attrition battles in which Iran specializes.
Deterrence measurement: the increasing importance of the ability to impose costs on the other side – an area in which Iran has shown great potential.
International management: the expanding role of regional powers in mediating crises, which effectively reduced the traditional influence of the United States.
The national power component: the increasing importance of social cohesion and domestic resilience – the very component that Iran demonstrated best in this war.
4. Domestic cohesion and resilience; a weapon beyond military arsenals
One of the most important and yet least seen dimensions of this war was the role of social cohesion and domestic stability in crisis management. The 110-day battle was not just a military confrontation; It was also a test of the resilience of society, the capacity of government institutions, and the capacity to manage difficult situations a test that Iran successfully passed.
The experience of this period showed that in conditions of external pressure, social solidarity, public trust, the continuity of public services, and the ability to maintain order and stability constitute an important part of national power. An analysis of the developments of the past months shows that despite heavy human, economic, and military losses including the martyrdom of dozens of senior military and scientific officials the main structures of governance and social life in Iran continued to function, and widespread instability was prevented. This was while the enemy had planned a significant part of its strategy based on Iran’s internal collapse.
According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency and unclassified assessments by Western intelligence agencies, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite enduring these strategic blows, not only did not collapse, but was able to maintain the relative coherence of its governing institutions. The continued functioning of Iran’s political, economic, and social structures during the war played an important role in overcoming difficult circumstances and maintaining bargaining power in the subsequent stages a factor that ultimately brought Iran to a stronger position at the negotiating table.
National power is not limited to missiles, fighter jets, and military equipment; rather, the ability of a society to maintain cohesion, continue normal life, and overcome crises is also considered part of a country’s strategic power. Iran proved in this war that it has not only maintained this component of power, but has turned it into one of its main trump cards against the enemy.
5. The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding; A confirmation of the success of Iranian diplomacy in the shadow of the resistance
After 110 days of conflict, the parties finally reached the final text of the agreement on 22 Joza 1405, and the signing ceremony of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding is scheduled to be held in Geneva, Switzerland on (19 June 2026). But what is remarkable about this agreement is not that the war ended, but rather the circumstances under which it ended.
Rather than being a comprehensive and lasting peace, the Islamabad Memorandum is a framework for de-escalation and the beginning of new talks; a framework in which Iran was able to sit at the negotiating table without accepting military defeat. It is important to emphasize that this agreement is an “internationally supervised ceasefire”; a moment between war and peace. But its strength for Tehran is that it was reached at a point when the enemy had failed to achieve its initial stated goals. The agreement is being signed at a time when Iran had shown that it could continue the war, but the enemy preferred to return to the path of diplomacy a development that many see as a victory for Iran’s active diplomacy over the strategy of maximum pressure.
According to the unpublished text of the Islamabad Memorandum, the parties have committed to begin negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, the status of sanctions, and security arrangements in the Persian Gulf within the next 60 days. The important fact is that before the war, the other side did not want negotiations without preconditions; but after 110 days of field resistance, it is now demanding the start of dialogue.
From the perspective of many analysts, the parties’ reaching a negotiating path after more than three months of conflict shows that a military solution alone has failed to achieve the desired goals and that diplomacy has once again become an inevitable option – with the difference that Iran is now sitting at the negotiating table with a fuller hand than before. The success or failure of the Islamabad Memorandum will have a direct impact on the future of regional security, but what seems certain so far is that Iran has managed to redefine the path of diplomacy to its advantage without military defeat and while maintaining its tools of pressure.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
The war showed that the strategy of short, low-cost wars faces serious challenges, that deterrence is more than ever based on mutual cost-sharing, that the role of regional actors in crisis management has increased, and that social cohesion remains one of the most important components of national power – and that Iran was able to perform in all these areas that changed the equations in its favor.
The five main lessons of this war for regional and global actors are:
1. The failure of the lightning victory hypothesis against an actor with strategic depth and resistance networks – a failure that Iran brought about.
2. The transformation of the concept of deterrence from complete annihilation to mutual cost-cutting – an arena in which Iran became a decisive regional power.
3. The increasing role of regional and emerging powers in international crisis management – a change that naturally elevated Iran’s position in the international system.
4. The importance of social cohesion and domestic resilience the very component that saved Iran from the collapse that the enemy predicted.
5. The shift of competition from the battlefield to the diplomatic arena an arena in which Iran entered with full hands after 110 days of resistance.
Now that the flames of conflict have subsided and the path to diplomacy has reopened, the most important question is not which side had the upper hand on the battlefield – the answer to that question gradually became clear during the 110-day war. Rather, the main question is: will regional and global actors use the lessons of this crisis to prevent future conflicts, or will they be forced to accept a new reality: a balance of power that has, willy-nilly and largely as a result of Iran’s actions shifted in Tehran’s favor?
The results of this war were a test of deterrence capacity, national resilience, and the extent to which hard and soft power can be effective in the new global equations. What seems certain so far is that Iran not only emerged victorious from this test, but also further consolidated its place in the changing regional order. This new reality, whether accepted by other actors or not, will become one of the determining factors in the West Asian equations in the coming years.
avapress.net/vdccsmq142bqpo8.-ya2.html
Top hits
