Today, to borrow a phrase, we are all Iranians.
We are Iranians, witnessing the failure of the despicable logic adopted by the United States and Israel, which works on a single, crude premise: enough pain can bend any nation to their imperial designs.
The US-Israel axis has long believed that force and coercion will eventually force the Iranians to give up their sovereignty and accept leases. It has failed. By refusing to surrender, the Iranians have transformed a lonely struggle for survival into a universal symbol of resistance – a testament to the endurance of the human spirit.
For weeks, we have watched the predictable mechanics of an empire try to destroy the will of the people. We have seen the familiar script of demonization followed by the machinery of industrial slaughter. Then, we saw America’s “Commander-in-Chief” issue a threat that challenged decency and defiled the art of statecraft.
US President Donald Trump did not threaten just one government or military. He threatened to end “civilization” in Iran.
This was a monstrous decree. This was also transparent. This was a desperate act of a desperate man. It was the filthy scream of a leader who knew he had lost the war.
Therefore, Trump resorted to the “mad man theory” of diplomacy, hoping that by appearing uncontrolled and capable of infinite destruction, he could scare a proud country into surrender.
he failed. The destruction was likely to hasten the collapse. Its purpose was to cause the remaining leadership in Tehran to flee and the frightened Iranians to submit.
The American-Israeli axis has made a fatal miscalculation. This is linked to the infamous conceit that resolutions are something that can be bought or broken.
Instead, Iran and Iranians stood firm. The “lunatic” in the White House was forced to negotiate with an opponent he claimed he had already defeated.
The inspiring measure of Iran’s success is found in that defiance. The Iranian people could have withered and bowed under the burden of such military, economic and psychological terror.
But the Iranians fought back. He proved that you cannot bombard a civilization with a poisonous post on social media, nor can you erase five millennia of history.
Iran dominates. He is winning a hard-fought war militarily, strategically, politically and diplomatically. Iran is winning because it understands the limitations of its enemies better than they understand themselves.
Iran is winning strategically because it has refused to fight the war its enemies were prepared for. It does not try to match axis ship to ship or jet to jet. Rather, it expands the battlefield across borders, allies, and time.
It absorbs blows and remains mobile. Its principle is simple: survive, resist, prolong. In doing so, it increases the cost of each attack against it. The Axis is now stuck in a reactive crisis – stuck, running out of money and credibility, while Iran moves its pieces forward with precision.
Analysts now warn that a war aimed at weakening Tehran could make it stronger. Iran is winning because it adapts. It uses drones, proxies and patience. It does not require air superiority to exert pressure. This requires stamina. Its “mosaic” strategy – layers of command and decentralized power – means that leaders may be killed, but the system will survive. It transforms vulnerability into resilience. It turns time into a weapon.
Indeed, Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz serves as a masterclass in “asymmetric leverage.” Sitting atop a chokepoint through which about a fifth of the world’s liquid petroleum passes, Iran effectively holds a “kill switch” for the global economy.
This geographical reality turns a narrow waterway into a powerful diplomatic bulwark. For Iran, “winning” is not necessarily about permanently closing the strait – which would damage its own fragile economy – but rather about maintaining the credible ability to do so.
This creates a permanent state of strategic caution between Western powers and energy-dependent Asian economies, ensuring that Tehran will remain an indispensable architect of Middle Eastern security.
Politically, the victory is even more obvious. The Axis has not achieved its overriding goal: “regime change.” The war was started to disintegrate the Iranian state. The opposite happened. It appears to have united the people and the state against an external existential threat. The American-Israeli axis is not seen as a force of liberation. It is seen as a collection of potential occupiers. This perception matters more than any missile.
While Washington has been paralyzed by anarchy and tribalism and Israel has sunk into coercive, corrosive authoritarianism, Iran – despite being damaged – remains strong and intact.
Diplomatically, the United States has never been more isolated. Trump’s ignorance, inconsistency, panic, and erratic behavior have alienated America’s closest allies. Europe, once a reliable partner in so-called “containment,” looks at the bizarre noise on display after a dizzying day in Washington and turns away.
Meanwhile, Iran has deepened its ties with the East. It secured its borders with China and Russia. It played the long game while Trump played for the next news cycle.
The world is moving towards Beijing and Brussels, while Washington screams into the void of its fading relevance. Iran has turned the “maximum pressure” campaign into a reality of “maximum cost” for the West.
The Axis can no longer proceed in the Middle East without taking Iranian influence into account. The hunter has become the hunted.
Still, let us be clear. Iran’s success is not a fruitless “victory” on the geopolitical scoreboard. This is not a victory of flags and parades. Its existence arises from fire and bone. It is wrapped in black and shrouded in sorrow.
The lingering human costs and trauma of this war of choice will last for generations. We must remember the thousands of people who were killed and maimed. We must remember those schoolchildren whose lives were ended by “precision” weapons. The Axis failed to break Iran’s back, but it has broken Iranian hearts. This is the nature of war: the only winners are those who inherit ruins.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
