AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Six months after the start of the war by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran, which Donald Trump, the President of the United States, had promised would be short and decisive, the United States is now facing a picture completely different from what Trump had sought to establish as victory.
According to a report by the news website Al Jazeera Net, a war that was supposed to end within a few weeks has turned into a confrontation with no clear end in sight. The Islamic Republic of Iran's system remains intact, the Strait of Hormuz has not returned to normal conditions, Iran's nuclear program has been damaged but not eliminated, and meanwhile, American weapons stockpiles are diminishing while the political and economic costs of the war against Iran continue to rise.
The most prominent American media outlets, particularly the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news website Axios, despite differences in their perspectives, agree on one fundamental conclusion: Trump has neither been able to achieve a clear military victory nor succeeded in reaching a ready-made peace agreement. He is in fact trapped in the middle of war and peace, attempting to transform this confrontation from a military engagement into long-term economic pressure in order to find an exit that can be presented as victory.
A Short War That Turned Into a Protracted Stalemate
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for the New York Times, paints a grim picture of the situation and believes that Trump's war against Iran, which marks its six-month anniversary this Friday, has turned into a stalemate of the president's own making. A war with no clear objectives, defined strategy, or end in sight.
Baker emphasizes in his report that Trump, who entered the White House criticizing endless wars, is now leading a version of those very same wars. He entered the war against Iran on February 28, 2026, expecting it to be a short military campaign, but after six months, he now finds himself hesitating between resuming large-scale bombing and reaching an agreement that would secure acceptable terms for him.
Trump has repeatedly declared that America has already won and even announced in June that the war was over, following a ceasefire that did not last long.
In the most recent example of this contradiction, which the New York Times correspondent mentioned at the beginning of his report, Trump posted an image on social media showing him standing beside an aircraft carrier, fighter jets, and American flags, with the phrase "Mission Accomplished 2026" displayed on it. A phrase that, whether ironically or unintentionally, recalled the famous slogan of former President George W. Bush, "Mission Accomplished," after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the reality does not align with Trump's declaration of victory.
Divergent Views on the Outcome of the War Against Iran
In the assessments of experts cited by the New York Times, Richard Haas, former director of policy planning at the State Department, describes the war as a catastrophic failure and believes that Iran has strategically benefited from both the old Iraq war and the current conflict. Tehran has managed to influence energy markets by creating disruptions in them.
This view aligns with the remarks of Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who stated that Trump has led America into a failed policy of historic proportions that has not achieved a single objective and has undermined Washington's standing internationally.
On the other hand, Peter Baker also conveys the perspective of war proponents. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, believes that Trump has created intense pressure that has brought Iran's government to its weakest state in 47 years. According to him, the US administration has found an ideal zone of pressure between war and negotiation.
Victor Davis Hanson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, also believes that Trump is executing an "Anaconda strategy," which relies on gradually suffocating the opponent through economic and military pressure with lower human and financial costs than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, Steven Cook, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, offers a more balanced assessment. He told the New York Times that the war by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran reflects Trump's bold but imprudent and unprepared style. According to him, if America ultimately wins, it will be because America is a powerful country despite Trump's mistakes, not because the US administration is executing an effective strategy.
Iran's Government Remains Intact; Unmet Objectives
One of the most significant contradictions of America's war against Iran is that one of its primary objectives, namely changing the political equation in Iran, has not been achieved.
Ayatollah al-Uzma Sayed Ali Khamenei, the late Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, was martyred in the initial strikes, but the Islamic Republic of Iran's system did not collapse, and Ayatollah Sayed Mojtaba Khamenei succeeded him. The governing structure in Tehran remains intact and capable of responding.
The New York Times writes that Iran's military capabilities, particularly its air and naval forces, have suffered severe damage, and Tehran's ability to support regional proxy forces has also diminished. However, this has not eliminated Iran's capacity to strike at American bases and its allies in the region.
Iran's nuclear program has also suffered significant damage but has not been eliminated. According to the newspaper's analysis, Iran still refuses to abandon its nuclear program, and some analysts believe that Tehran can rebuild parts of it.
Richard Haas believes that Iran has strategically benefited from the two wars America has fought in the region. In Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime strengthened Iran's influence, and in the current conflict, Tehran has demonstrated its ability to affect global energy markets by disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz; The Clearest Test of Failure to Achieve a Decisive Outcome
In this case, the analyses of the three American media outlets converge significantly.
Trump claims that the Strait of Hormuz is open and that America is increasingly transporting oil through it, but this narrative lacks sufficient support.
According to a report by the Washington Post, before the war, more than 100 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz daily, whereas data from Kepler, a company specializing in tracking commodity transport and shipping, shows that on one day this week, that number dropped to just five vessels.
The New York Times presents a more significant figure, reporting that the average number of ship transits has fallen to about 12 per day, compared to 130 ships per day before the war.
In this way, the Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most important indicators of America's stalemate. Washington has failed to restore maritime traffic to pre-war levels, and at the same time, it does not wish to enter a more dangerous confrontation that might require broader military operations.
This crisis has also directly impacted the lives of Americans. According to figures published by the New York Times, the average price of gasoline in America has reached approximately $4.09 per gallon, an increase of $1.10 since the start of the war.
The Economic Option; An Exit or An Admission of Limited Power?
After the failure of the military option and the breakdown of the negotiation path, Trump has moved toward a third strategy: imposing economic sanctions on Iran to force Tehran into submission.
The President of the United States spoke this August about the largest crippling economic operation ever carried out against any country. Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary, also described it as a day of economic enforcement against Iran and threatened countries and companies that continue to cooperate with Tehran with sanctions.
But the Washington Post reveals a fundamental contradiction in this option. Bessent simultaneously tempered the severity of these threats, emphasizing that he would not impose sanctions immediately. He asked why he should destroy the global financial system.
The newspaper, citing Richard Nephew, one of the principal architects of the sanctions regime against Iran during the Obama administration, writes that the message of this approach to the Iranians has been quite clear: there are limits to the actions Washington is willing to take.
Nephew says the main concern is that America's war against Iran may have simultaneously exposed the limits of both military and economic pressure, and Iran may conclude that it can withstand all of this pressure.
The problem lies precisely here. If neither military power nor economic sanctions can force Tehran to surrender, Washington may lose the leverage tools it has relied upon.
Erosion of American Capability; A Cost Beyond Iran
The cost of the war against Iran is not limited to rising energy prices or human casualties. The Washington Post has reported that the Pentagon's stockpiles of certain advanced weapons have been severely depleted.
According to this report, America has lost about a quarter of its Reaper drones, and its Patriot missile inventories have also decreased sharply.
The New York Times states that the number of Patriot missiles remaining in America's arsenal has fallen from approximately 2,330 to a maximum of 759 last month. An estimate based on data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
This erosion has also affected Washington's allies. Some countries have become more cautious in providing military aid to Ukraine or Arab nations, fearing that if America's capacity to supply these weapons diminishes, they may themselves need them.
According to the Washington Post, former American officials have warned that America's allies in the Middle East have also begun to hedge their risks. This means that the American presence, which was previously a source of protection for them, has become a factor making them targets during the war.
Domestically, the war against Iran is no longer merely a foreign policy issue. Rising fuel and commodity prices have put pressure on Trump's popularity, and the midterm elections are approaching.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll cited by the New York Times, Trump's approval rating has fallen to 33 percent. Only 31 percent of Americans support the war, while 63 percent oppose it.
These figures place the American president before a difficult equation. The longer the war against Iran continues, the higher its political cost will be, and the more Trump escalates military tensions, the greater the economic and military risks become.
Six Months; Six Shifting Exits
The news website Axios offers the best summary of the fluctuations in Trump's strategy through a series of his statements.
In its report, the website writes that the war against Iran began with clear military objectives, including destroying Iran's missile capability, eliminating its navy, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and ending Tehran's ability to support armed groups beyond its borders.
Then, in April, Trump announced that he had achieved nearly all military objectives and that a long-term peace agreement was also close.
In June, he also announced that he had reached an agreement with Iran that, in his words, accomplished everything we had been working for.
However, the memorandum of understanding, which included a cessation of hostile actions, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and nuclear negotiations for a period of 60 days, later collapsed, a point that Axios emphasized.
In July, Trump announced that he no longer wished to engage with Iran, but then again raised two options: continuing the military path or reaching an agreement. In August, a third option emerged: a full-scale economic war.
Thus, as Axios concludes, the war against Iran, which was supposed to last four or five weeks, has turned into a six-month war, while America's exit path from it is also constantly shifting.
Conclusion; Neither Victory Nor Peace
The analysts cited by the three American media outlets may disagree on the extent of damage America has inflicted on Iran. Mark Dubowitz believes the Islamic Republic is weaker than ever, while others believe it is Washington that has emerged from the war weaker than before.
But the most important common ground among the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Axios is not that Iran has won or that America has been militarily defeated. Rather, it is that the war has not achieved its declared objectives and has not led to a lasting peace.
**************
End/ 345E
