Evaluating the Objectives and Outcomes of the Iran Conflict: What Has Been Achieved?

Following the announcement of a fragile ceasefire, U.S. President Donald Trump celebrated the perceived successes of the United States and Israel in Iran after over a month of conflict.

Back on February 28, Trump declared the military campaign in Iran, stating the mission was to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,” though no specific evidence of such threats was provided. While he hinted at regime change as a goal, he stopped short of explicitly stating it.

In the ensuing days, as criticism grew over the unclear objectives of the U.S. actions, the White House clarified its aims with four key goals: ending Iran’s nuclear program, dismantling its navy, destroying its missile capabilities, and cutting off its support for terrorist groups.

On Wednesday, Trump revealed a two-week suspension of hostilities, contingent upon Iran’s reopening of the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz.

Trump took to Truth Social to declare, “The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change!” He also asserted that Iran would cease further uranium enrichment.

His defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, declared the operation a “historic and overwhelming victory”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also characterised it as a success, though his comments were more muted.

“This is not an end to the war, it is a station on the way to reaching all of our targets,” he said.

Iran, too, painted the outcome a success. Its Supreme National Security Council congratulated the “people of Iran for this victory”.

So, what objectives were actually accomplished, and did any party come out on top?

Regime change?

In a national address last week, Trump said regime change “was not our goal”, but it had occurred “because of all their original leaders’ death”.

“The new group is much less radical and much more reasonable.”

The US and Israel killed many of Iran’s regime leaders at the start of the war, including its 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose death ended a 36-year reign.

However, many analysts say the new leadership in Iran is more hardline, and does not amount to real regime change — typically understood as a fundamental shift in a country’s ruling system or power structure.

The former ayatollah was replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen since the war began.

Any regime change would be a lengthy process, and “only time will tell” if it eventuates, Eyal Mayroz, a senior lecturer in peace and conflict studies at the University of Sydney, told SBS News.

“Let’s say the war ended. Now Iran has to manage a devastated country with a very angry population, without the means to address all these economic needs,” he said.

But even experts don’t have a clear sense of the dynamics within the Iranian leadership, he said, and currently, “more radicals” seem to be in control.

Iran’s navy and missile capabilities unclear

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday that US military operations “completely annihilated” Iran’s navy, destroying more than 150 naval vessels.

Hegseth said Iran’s missile program had been “functionally destroyed”, with launchers, production facilities and stockpiles “depleted and decimated”.

Satellite images verified by the BBC early last month suggested US and Israeli strikes had destroyed or damaged at least 11 naval vessels and severely damaged buildings at naval bases.

Last week, CNN reported that roughly half of Iran’s missile launchers were still intact and it still had thousands of attack drones in its arsenal, citing US intelligence sources.

SBS News has not independently verified either claim.

Mayroz said that while Iran’s missile arsenal was hit badly, it’s likely Iran retains a stockpile and will simply rebuild its arsenal.

The question of proxy groups

“This is an unknown,” Mayroz said.

Despite the ceasefire, Israel hasn’t stopped its attacks on Lebanon, which have included bombing raids on parts of the capital, Beirut.

One of the demands in Iran’s 10-point peace plan, expected to underpin peace talks with the US, is a complete cessation of war in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

After the US and Israel started the war with strikes on Iran, Iran’s proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen — retaliated with attacks on Israel.

Israel subsequently began striking targets in Lebanon, and ordered an occupation of southern Lebanon from the Israeli border to the Litani River.

The US ceasefire proposal is reported to include a demand for Iran to end its support of regional proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

What about Iran’s nuclear program?

Last June, after US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Trump said Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been completely “obliterated”.

But Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium — just short of weapons grade — is believed to have survived, buried deep in the country’s mountains.

Iran has a history of engaging in nuclear activities in violation of its international commitments, and many countries agree that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Trump said the US would be working with Iran to “dig up and remove all of the deeply buried … nuclear ‘dust’”.

Iran has maintained it was not seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, and in its 10-point plan, said it would commit to not developing one in the future

However Mayroz said: “The nuclear threat is still alive and kicking.”

Brendon O’Connor, a professor of US politics and US foreign relations at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, said he sees a lot of the US’ aims as “counterproductive”.

Iran’s nuclear program has undoubtedly been set back, he said, but the question is “how far back?”

“The incentive to develop nuclear weapons has also been increased,” he added.

“If you’re being now attacked twice and in the second attack, quite devastatingly, what’s your best weapon against that type of attack? It’s a nuclear weapon.”

‘Everyone loses in this war’

While all sides have claimed victory, analysts say there are no winners in this conflict.

The war may have only served to embolden Iran in some ways, Mayroz suggested, now that Iran has established two extra tools in its deterrence arsenal beyond its nuclear program.

“One was the ability of Iran using the Gulf states as a hostage in terms of … firing ballistic missiles and other missiles and drones. So that’s very strong deterrence for, mainly for the Americans, and obviously for the Gulf states,” he said.

“And the second one was the Hormuz Strait. [It offers], I think, even a better deterrence capability for the Iranians than the nuclear program, because nuclear is kind of a mutually assured destruction.”

While it’s hard to quantify the gains and losses on each side, Mayroz said the US and Israel did not come out on top.

“They lost internationally. They lost domestically, in terms of what matters to I think both leaders significantly is their popularity and their positioning ahead of elections in both countries.”

The US will hold midterm elections in November while Israelis will go to the polls later this year.

Both Trump and Netanyahu have lost ground in polls as the conflict drags on, and surveys also indicate a decline in support for Israel among the US public.

Should the Democrats win back control of Congress in the midterm elections, or reclaim the White House in 2028, O’Connor suggests they may take a “very new approach to Israel than we’ve ever seen in American politics since the 1950s”.

“So to have an American government that wants to cut maybe military aid to Israel and sees Israel as a problem, not a close ally, that’s going to be a big change for Israel,” he said.

Iran, meanwhile, has suffered significant civilian casualties and loss of infrastructure, he noted.

“Everyone loses in this war.”

For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.