US President Donald Trump has found a way out of the confrontation he initiated with Iran, stepping back after indirect negotiations—mediated primarily by Pakistan and backed by China—produced a ceasefire. While Trump may claim that Iran was deterred by his threats, the reality suggests otherwise. The agreement leaves the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control, indicating that Tehran has not yielded and that Washington, in effect, has.
It is premature to declare a “golden age” from these talks, but the contours of the conflict’s outcome are already clear.
Iran has held firm. For decades, the country faced the threat of joint US-Israeli aggression. That threat has now been tested and failed to break Tehran. Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv proved capable of imposing their will by force. The result is clear: Iran has consolidated its status as a major regional power, standing alongside Israel as one of the decisive actors in the Middle East.
The Gulf states have been exposed. The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf have discovered both their vulnerability and their dependence. In a conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, they proved unable to defend their own interests. Meanwhile, American bases on their territory, far from guaranteeing security, became magnets for Iranian retaliation. The lesson for Washington’s allies is stark: US security guarantees have been shown to be unreliable.
Military power has reasserted primacy. The conflict has underlined a broader truth about the emerging international order: military force outweighs economic and financial leverage. Sanctioned Iran, burdened by economic difficulties, has effectively withstood, and in strategic terms defeated, a global superpower. Meanwhile, its far wealthier southern neighbors have been reduced to little more than spectators, or worse, targets. In today’s world, hard power determines outcomes.
Iran has changed internally. Iran has emerged from the conflict intact, but transformed. During the war, a shift long anticipated by analysts appears to have taken place. Real power has moved away from the clerical establishment and toward the security apparatus. The country is no longer defined primarily by its formal leadership, but by the senior ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran will remain an Islamic republic, but one in which the IRGC plays the decisive role. Its policy is likely to be firm, disciplined and pragmatic.
Moscow has navigated the conflict with a degree of strategic discipline. It has maintained its principles, calling aggression by its name, expressing solidarity with Iran, and vetoing what it viewed as an unbalanced UN Security Council resolution on the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, it has preserved working relations with key actors: explaining its position to Gulf partners, avoiding direct confrontation with Trump, and refraining from damaging ties with Israel. The broader consequences of the conflict—a temporary spike in oil prices, strains in transatlantic relations, and a further diversion of US attention from Ukraine—have unfolded largely independently of Russia’s direct involvement.
The war has opened new opportunities for Moscow. Iran, having endured a severe test, has strengthened its regional and international standing. This creates conditions for closer cooperation between Russia and Tehran. More broadly, the outlines of a new Eurasian security architecture are becoming visible. Russia, China, Iran—alongside states such as Belarus and North Korea—form the core of this emerging system. In the south, Iran has effectively halted an American geopolitical advance. In the west, Russia seeks to do the same in Ukraine. In the east, China continues to expand its military capabilities while advancing its diplomatic agenda. It is through such developments, not declarations, but shifts in power and alignment, that a multipolar world is taking shape.
