US-Iran ceasefire: Who really won and what’s next?

Dhaka, Bangladesh || Friday, 17 April 2026 || 4 Boishakh 1433

HEADLINE:

Pakistan mediation raises hopes for US-Iran nuclear breakthrough Over 40 lakh cases pending in lower courts: Law minister 8 more die with measles and symptoms in 24hrs Silent Trump hints naval blockade option against Iran Lottery system doesn’t determine merit: Education Minister PM Tarique vows sweeping reforms, reaffirms army’s neutral role Shirin Sharmin gets bail

Why you feel tired all the time, even after 8 hours of sleep

You clocked in at 11:00 PM and woke up

US-Iran ceasefire: Who really won and what’s next?

As the smoke clears, a more complicated picture emerges

Heavy regulatory burdens hinder investment in Bangladesh: World Bank

Complex and discretionary regulatory processes in Bangladesh are creating

Climate Change’s Adverse Effects on Children and Women in Bangladesh

Climate change poses severe risks to vulnerable populations worldwide,

US-Iran ceasefire: Who really won and what’s next?

Peoples Time Desk

Published : Thursday, 9 April, 2026 at 3:40 PM, Update: 09.04.2026 3:42:39 PM, Count : 76

US-Iran ceasefire: Who really won and what’s next?

As the smoke clears, a more complicated picture emerges in which destruction did not translate into control; Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains partially intact, its regional networks unbroken, and the Strait of Hormuz firmly under its grip

"A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again."

When Donald Trump issued this ominous warning the day before, the world paused. Markets froze, diplomats scrambled, and millions waited for what seemed like the brink of Armageddon.

It was an unprecedented statement that crossed into the realm of annihilation, of targeting a 6000-year-old civilisation. It was, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has put it, "America's darkest hour."

The Business Standard Google News Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel

And yet, barely an hour before that deadline expired, Washington and Tehran agreed to a two-week ceasefire. Humanity let out a collective sigh of relief at the 11th hour, literally, and we became the first generation to wait the whole night for World War III, only to be notified that it has been postponed at the last moment.

Now might be the good time to ask the fundamental question of who, if anyone, has actually won, and whether this fragile truce can hold.

War of destruction, illusion of victory

For weeks, the war unfolded with a sense of inevitability, with airstrikes deep into Iranian territory, infrastructure reduced to rubble, and a steady stream of triumphant claims from Washington and Tel Aviv.

By the numbers alone, it appeared decisive: thousands of strikes, key military installations degraded, and a leadership targeted with precision.

Yet, as the smoke clears, a more complicated picture emerges in which destruction did not translate into control, and battlefield gains failed to deliver political outcomes. Iran's nuclear infrastructure remains partially intact, its regional networks unbroken, and its most potent strategic asset, the Strait of Hormuz, firmly under its grip.

In a war that was supposed to coerce, deter, and ultimately reshape Iran by toppling its regime and dismantling its offensive power, the core objectives remain visibly unattained.

Then came the moment that crystallised the stakes. Behind the scenes, Iran's 10-point negotiation framework had already begun to shape the contours of the ceasefire, giving Tehran a degree of leverage that seemed improbable at the outset of the war. What began as a campaign to weaken Iran ended with Washington negotiating within parameters largely defined by its adversary.

The consequences extend far beyond the battlefield. Internally, the war has reshaped Iran's political landscape, consolidating power around a younger, more radical leadership emboldened by survival rather than chastened by defeat.

The pro-democracy movements and civil dissent have been sidelined, if not entirely extinguished, by the unifying effect of external aggression. Regionally, the ceasefire remains precarious, with Israel continuing its campaign in Lebanon and raising the spectre of renewed escalation.

The United States and Israel launched over 13,000 strikes by some estimates, targeting nuclear facilities, infrastructure, and leadership networks. Yet, despite the wholesale destruction, the fundamental objectives of Washington and Tel Aviv remain unresolved. In other words, the war has inflicted damage — but not delivered strategic closure.

Yet, President Trump was quick to declare success. In announcing the ceasefire, he claimed the United States had "met and exceeded all military objectives." But this assertion sits uneasily against battlefield realities.

Just weeks earlier, Israeli officials had claimed near-total air superiority, with up to 80% of Iran's air defences destroyed. Yet by the sixth week, American warplanes were reportedly being hit "with regularity," suggesting not collapse but adaptation.

Iran, far from capitulating, has demonstrated what military analysts describe as "asymmetric endurance" by absorbing initial damage while preserving its ability to retaliate and escalate selectively.

This is the paradox at the heart of the conflict: the United States can dominate the skies, but it cannot dictate the outcome.

Iran's leverage: The 10-point framework

If the battlefield produced ambiguity, the negotiating table clarified one thing: leverage had shifted. Iran's 10-point proposal, apparently accepted by Washington as a "workable basis", outlined demands that would have been unthinkable weeks earlier.

These include full lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of US forces from the region, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damages and recognition of its nuclear programme under certain terms. Thus, the Iranians have leverage now in a way that they did not have before."

And that leverage rests on a simple reality: Iran has survived. That's how such a war of attrition works — who is the last man standing.

The Strait as the ultimate bargaining chip

More than any missile or drone, the decisive factor in this war has been geography. Control over the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of global oil once flowed — has given Tehran unprecedented economic and strategic leverage.

Even during the conflict, Iran has demonstrated its ability to regulate passage, impose tolls, and disrupt global markets. At one point, the cost of passage reportedly reached up to $2 million per vessel.

This transforms the strait from a chokepoint into a weapon, far greater than any nuclear weapon. It is this leverage that forced Washington to negotiate.

A threat that changed the war and America's image

Trump's "civilisation" remark may have achieved its immediate objective of forcing a pause. But its long-term consequences are far more complex. The threat was widely condemned, including within the United States. The whole sentiment can be summed up by Senator Lisa Murkowski's comment, "It cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage."

More broadly, it signals a shift in how American power is perceived. The United States, once seen as a stabilising force is now "shaking the foundations of the international order."

In attempting to coerce an outcome, Washington may have weakened its own credibility. And this would require quite the effort to rebuild it again.

The unintended consequence: Iran's internal consolidation

Perhaps the most consequential outcome of the war lies not on the battlefield, but within Iran itself.

Before the conflict, the regime faced internal dissent, protests, and a fragile social contract. Yet external pressure has historically had a unifying effect — and this war appears no different.

« Previous