War in Iran: Triple Failure and Strategic Deadlock

02/04/2026

Author

In Iran, the operation launched on February 28 by the United States and Israel is failing on military, economic, and political fronts, revealing that the regime’s resilience was underestimated. What are the geopolitical consequences of this war, as the strikes fuel anger among Iranians and risk strengthening the Revolutionary Guards?

More than a month after Israel and the United States launched their war against Iran, one conclusion stands out: despite overwhelming military superiority, the Israeli-American coalition is, for now, facing a triple failure. First, a military and security failure; second, an economic and financial failure; and finally, a political and strategic failure. The challenge is not only to assess this outcome, but to understand its deeper causes and measure its potentially far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

Before examining these three dimensions, one element deserves to be recalled, as it sheds light on the current sequence. This war was launched on February 28, at a time when indirect negotiations were underway between Tehran and Washington, under Omani mediation, covering all major points of contention-nuclear issues, ballistic missiles, and regional stability. According to statements by Oman’s Foreign Minister, on the eve of the outbreak of hostilities, the two sides were close to an agreement and had planned to continue negotiations in Vienna just days later.

On February 27, stability and prosperity still prevailed across the Persian Gulf monarchies. Navigation through the Strait of Hormuz remained free, oil prices hovered around $72 per barrel, and no one was speaking of a new oil shock. At the same time, a significant portion of the Iranian population still believed in Donald Trump’s promises of "help to come."

A few weeks later, the strategic landscape has been profoundly transformed: Iran now exercises full control over the Strait of Hormuz, maritime routes are disrupted, oil prices have risen above $110 per barrel, and the specter of a major energy shock triggering a global recession is at the center of international concerns. Within Iranian society, the rally-around-the-flag effect and the perceived necessity to defend the homeland against external aggression are increasingly outweighing democratic aspirations.

Iran’s Resilience, Underestimated

The first lesson of this conflict lies in the clear gap between stated military objectives and actual outcomes.

The initial ambition-to durably neutralize Iran’s strategic capabilities-has not been achieved. While infrastructure has been destroyed and numerous command centers targeted, these strikes have failed to sustainably disrupt Iran’s military apparatus.

Iran retains significant strike capabilities, particularly its ballistic missiles and drones, which it continues to deploy in a coordinated manner.

Iran retains significant strike capabilities, particularly its ballistic missiles and drones, which it continues to deploy in a coordinated manner. Moreover, some recent operations suggest improved operational performance, with strikes reaching high-value strategic targets. Advanced surveillance systems in Jordan have reportedly been destroyed, along with aerial assets such as the US-made F-35, an AWACS aircraft, and refueling planes. Its nuclear program, though weakened, has not been dismantled. Finally, its regional proxies remain active, maintaining sustained pressure across multiple theaters.

This resilience is largely explained by an initial miscalculation: the underestimation of Iran’s strategic depth. For decades, the Islamic Republic has structured its military around principles of dispersion, redundancy, and asymmetry. This model is designed to absorb conventional strikes while preserving a strong retaliatory capability. Under such conditions, even an intensive air campaign cannot suffice to neutralize such a system.

More broadly, this conflict confirms a well-established pattern in modern warfare: in asymmetric settings, conventional military superiority does not guarantee strategic victory. The United States has experienced this repeatedly since World War II, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the comparison quickly reaches its limits: Iran is a far more structured, populous, and technologically advanced state, with a developed defense industrial base and a large pool of engineers. Despite sanctions, this has enabled it to domestically produce a significant share of its weapons systems, particularly in the fields of ballistic missiles and drones.

An Economic Failure: A Poorly Anticipated Global Shock

The second failure is economic.

One of the most immediate consequences of the conflict has been the destabilization of the global energy market. Restrictions on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz-through which roughly 20% of global oil supply transits, according to the International Energy Agency-as well as a significant share of liquefied natural gas and other strategic commodities, have severely disrupted economic flows.

In practice, Iran has demonstrated its ability to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz and to hinder the movement of a significant number of vessels. Faced with this situation, the Israeli-American coalition appears, at this stage, unable to ensure lasting security along this maritime route without risking substantial losses.

Furthermore, Donald Trump’s calls for international mobilization-particularly toward China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, France, and the United Kingdom-have gone largely unanswered. This situation has even contributed to increasing tensions between the United States and its European allies, particularly within NATO.

In response to the destruction of its energy infrastructure, Iran has also targeted installations in several Persian Gulf countries, amplifying the shock effect. The outcome is unequivocal: a sharp rise in prices, heightened market volatility, and the return of global inflationary risks.

This shock extends far beyond the region. It directly affects European and Asian economies, weakens macroeconomic balances, and complicates the conduct of monetary policy in an already uncertain environment.

A war intended to eliminate a strategic risk has instead created a new one-on a global scale-without resolving the original threat.

In other words, a war intended to eliminate a strategic risk has instead created a new one-on a global scale-without resolving the original threat.

A Political and Strategic Failure: The Opposite of the Intended Effect

Yet it is likely on the political front that the failure is most profound.

The implicit assumption of a rapid weakening of the regime-or even a popular uprising-has, so far, not materialized. Quite the opposite.

Iranian society has been drawn into a logic of national defense. The destruction of infrastructure, civilian casualties, and violations of territorial integrity have triggered a classic wartime rallying effect.

This phenomenon has profoundly altered internal political dynamics. It has weakened protest movements while restoring the regime’s legitimacy through narratives of sovereignty and territorial defense.

At the same time, the external opposition has once again appeared disconnected and out of step with prevailing sentiments within Iranian society. By actively supporting Israeli-American strikes and aligning politically with Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, it reinforces the image of an opposition perceived as external to the national body and disconnected from Iran’s political culture-an untenable position in a country deeply shaped by the defense of national independence.

More broadly, the war has blurred the Western message. It undermines the credibility of a discourse centered on democracy and human rights, creating the impression that these principles are being instrumentalized for strategic purposes.

While part of the Iranian population may initially have placed some trust in Donald Trump’s promises of support, recent developments have profoundly altered that perception. Attempts at destabilization attributed to external actors-particularly through certain Kurdish groups based in Iraq-combined with the destruction of civilian infrastructure (schools, hospitals, water reservoirs, universities, and UNESCO-listed heritage sites), as well as mounting civilian casualties, have transformed expectations into deep mistrust. This shift fuels growing anger toward Israel and the United States and lends credibility to the Islamic Republic’s narrative that their true objective is less democratic change than the weakening and fragmentation of Iran.

As a result, the war reinforces a now widely shared perception: that the threat is directed not at the regime, but at the nation itself.

A War with Lasting Geopolitical Consequences

Overall, this sequence highlights a series of miscalculations. Militarily, Iran’s resilience was underestimated. Economically, the systemic effects of the conflict were poorly anticipated. Politically, Iran’s internal dynamics were insufficiently understood.

If-an increasingly plausible scenario-this war does not lead to regime change, the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would emerge significantly strengthened. Its political, economic, and military power, already central to the Iranian system, could become nearly absolute.

This dynamic may also produce lasting regional effects, particularly as the sustainability of prolonged US military engagement in the Middle East remains uncertain amid a strategic pivot toward Asia.

Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf monarchies have seen, in just a few weeks, their development model-based on stability, economic openness, and financial attractiveness-severely weakened. These states are likely to emerge from the war significantly more vulnerable. It cannot be ruled out that this fragility, combined with domestic public pressure-never fully supportive of rapprochement with the United States, and especially with Israel-could eventually challenge their internal political equilibria.

Beyond the region, the conflict could accelerate ongoing geopolitical realignments, particularly the strategic rapprochement between China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Recent agreements, notably between Beijing and Tehran, signal a desire to structure long-term partnerships across energy, military, and financial domains.

From a geoeconomic perspective, these developments are also fueling debates over the potential erosion of the dollar’s dominant role in international trade. While the petrodollar remains central, initiatives to expand energy transactions in yuan are multiplying, particularly under Chinese leadership.

In other words, this war-launched by Washington and Jerusalem-may accelerate trends already underway: the shift of the global center of gravity toward Asia and the emergence of a new world order envisioned by Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran.

A Major Political and Strategic Turning Point

This war marks a major political and strategic turning point-not only for Iran, but for the entire region and, beyond that, for the global balance of power.

Israel’s stated objective from the outset-to trigger regime change in Tehran, and for which Benjamin Netanyahu persuaded Donald Trump to engage-now appears out of reach. Instead, the war may produce the opposite effect: not the collapse of the Islamic Republic, but its transformation and consolidation. The religious dimension of power may gradually give way to a more militarized and nationalist logic, marking the emergence of an "Islamic Republic 2.0," centered on security and sovereignty.

In the short term, a tightening of security control seems inevitable. In the medium term, the direction of the Iranian regime remains uncertain, but a shift toward a more centralized system dominated by security structures appears plausible.

One thing, however, seems likely: Iran will turn away from Washington for the long term. It will deepen its ties with China and Russia, embedding itself more firmly in the broader rebalancing of the international system toward Asia. In this context, Europe-and France in particular-has a strategic window that it has so far only partially seized.

To exert influence, France will need to clarify its position. It must assert itself as a balancing power, committed to international law and capable of engaging with all regional actors. This requires a return to a Gaullist tradition of strategic autonomy, as well as the establishment of a direct, structured, and credible dialogue with Iranian civil society.

The stakes are clear: preventing Iran from becoming locked into an exclusive strategic alignment with Beijing and Moscow. Beyond the fate of the regime, what is at issue is the strategic orientation of a country of 90 million people at the heart of Eurasian dynamics-and, with it, a part of the future of the international order.

France

Europe and International