Ceasefire: Have US/Israel achieved their aims in Iran?

United States President Donald Trump has announced a two-week ceasefire in the US–Israel offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran, some 39 days after what Tehran describes as an unprovoked war on the Persian Gulf nation that began in late February. The conflict has reportedly claimed hundreds of Iranian lives, including that of the Supreme […]

United States President Donald Trump has announced a two-week ceasefire in the US–Israel offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran, some 39 days after what Tehran describes as an unprovoked war on the Persian Gulf nation that began in late February.

The conflict has reportedly claimed hundreds of Iranian lives, including that of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as scores of schoolgirls in the southern city of Minab.

“Both parties have displayed remarkable wisdom and understanding and have remained constructively engaged in furthering the cause of peace and stability,” Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on X while announcing the cessation of hostilities.

 

Iran’s 10-point ceasefire plan

Iran proposed a 10-point ceasefire framework, which the United States reportedly accepted as “workable”. The key provisions in the copy Iran circulated are: Commitment to non-aggression, Continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, Acceptance of uranium enrichment, Lifting of all primary sanctions, Lifting of all secondary sanctions, Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions, Termination of all IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, Payment of compensation to Iran, Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region, and Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including against allied groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

 

Early casualties and escalation

The killing of the Supreme Leader and the schoolgirls reportedly occurred on the very first day of the war — February 28.

In response, Iran launched barrages of ballistic missiles, drones, and other projectiles targeting several Israeli cities, including Dimona, widely believed to host Israel’s undeclared nuclear facilities, as well as US military installations across Gulf countries.

Due to censorship and reporting restrictions in Israel, official casualty figures remain below 50, though hundreds have reportedly been wounded. The United States is said to have lost about a dozen servicemen, along with multiple aircraft. Civilian casualties have also been reported across Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

Ceasefire talks brokered by Prime Minister Sharif are expected to continue in Islamabad.

 

Who has the upper hand?

After 39 days of sustained military exchanges, the central question remains: who has emerged victorious — US–Israel or Iran?

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared a decisive victory, stating:

“Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield. A capital V military victory.”

He added that the campaign achieved “every single objective,” including dismantling Iran’s navy, air defence systems, and missile production capabilities.

The core objectives of Washington and Tel Aviv reportedly included: Disabling Iran’s missile capabilities, reducing or eliminating its stockpiles of enriched uranium, limiting its ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, and dismantling Iran-aligned groups such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq.

Secondary objectives allegedly included regime change and potential control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Evidence suggests that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities remain largely intact. Tehran continued launching large-scale barrages until the ceasefire, indicating sustained operational capacity.

Apart from airstrikes on facilities in Isfahan and Natanz, there is no confirmed evidence of total or partial destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in early 2026 that there were no signs of radioactive leaks or increased radiation levels following the strikes. This strongly suggests that the objective of crippling Iran’s nuclear programme has not been fully achieved.

Efforts to dismantle Iran’s regional allies also appear incomplete. Hezbollah remains active despite Israeli operations, while Yemen’s Houthi forces have continued launching attacks on Israel in recent weeks.

Although key figures, including Ayatollah Khamenei and Ali Larijani, were killed, regime change in Iran appears unlikely.

Power has shifted to more hardline elements, maintaining continuity rather than collapse.

Analysts argue that Iran’s military and political system is specifically designed for resilience.

At the top sits the Supreme Leader, the commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Beneath this authority are two parallel military structures: The Artesh (regular army), responsible for conventional defence, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), tasked with protecting the revolution both militarily and ideologically.

The IRGC also controls Iran’s missile and drone arsenal through its aerospace division.

This dual structure is intentional. It prevents over-centralisation and acts as a safeguard against coups or systemic collapse.

Within the IRGC is the Basij, a mass mobilisation force used for internal security and ideological enforcement.

Iran also maintains multiple intelligence agencies, including the Ministry of Intelligence and the IRGC Intelligence Unit.

These operate alongside numerous other services coordinated under a central intelligence council.

Beyond its borders, Iran projects influence through the IRGC’s Quds Force, which manages relationships with allied groups across Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Iraq, and previously Syria.

Iran’s military command is decentralised across multiple units, including: Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, which coordinates joint operations, and Muhammad Rasulullah Unit, responsible for defending Tehran.

Above them sits the Supreme National Security Council, which aligns military and political strategy without directly commanding forces.

This layered and duplicated structure is designed to absorb shocks. Even after the loss of senior commanders, leadership transitions have remained orderly.

While the United States and Israel claim a decisive victory, evidence on the ground suggests a more complex reality.

Key objectives — crippling Iran’s missile programme, dismantling its nuclear capabilities, weakening its regional alliances, and achieving regime change—appear only partially fulfilled, if at all.

Iran’s resilience lies in its deeply layered military and political architecture, which has so far enabled it to withstand significant external pressure.

Whether this system can adapt to faster and more complex future threats remains an open question.