Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was finally unveiled a few days ago only reaffirmed how misguided the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28 was, as by every account and careful analysis, despite Iran’s heavy losses, it has come out on top. Should the US and Iran negotiate the various provisions of the MUO in good faith, the latter will likely gain considerably more at the negotiating table than it would have before the war.

Before we delve into the reasons why Iran has emerged victorious despite its massive losses, it is important to revisit the reasons why the US and Israel attacked Iran in the first place and why they failed to achieve any of the objectives that they set out to accomplish. The war’s stated objectives—regime change, the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, the curtailment of its ballistic missile arsenal, and the weakening of its regional proxy network—were not merely ambitious; they were fundamentally detached from what defines Iran as a state, a society, and a strategic actor. The US’ and Israel’s failure should not come as a surprise. It was, in fact, predictable.

Before any military confrontation or serious negotiation, a state must rigorously assess its adversary across several dimensions: political structure, ideological conviction, historical experience, cultural identity, geostrategic positioning, and national aspirations. In the case of Iran, the US and Israel ignored the implications of these dimensions that characterize the country and how they might manifest themselves in a time of national crisis.

Iran’s psychological national mindset is anchored in a powerful sense of civilizational continuity and historical grievance, fusing Persian pride with an acute memory of foreign intervention and betrayal. This produces a deeply entrenched siege mentality—a conviction that Iran must rely on self reliance, strategic patience, and asymmetric power to withstand external threats—let alone existential ones—and to preserve its revolutionary identity at home and across the region.

Politically, Iran is not a fragile state susceptible to rapid political internal breakdown. Its governing system, complex, layered, and deeply entrenched, has demonstrated remarkable durability. The regime’s political cohesion, particularly among its security apparatus in support of the regime, has repeatedly proven resilient in the face of both domestic unrest and international sanctions and military threats.

Ideologically, Iran’s leadership operates within a framework where religion and governance are inseparable. The Islamic Republic’s worldview is not merely strategic but also ideological and theological. It perceives resistance to external pressure, particularly from the US and Israel, as both a political necessity and a religious duty. This ideological foundation reinforces, rather than weakens, the regime under attack. External aggression tends to consolidate internal support rather than ignite a popular uprising, as was hoped.

Historically, Iran’s sense of identity is shaped by more than 2,500 years of history. This long civilizational memory has cultivated a deep-seated buoyancy and a capacity to absorb and outlast external threats. Unlike younger states, which lack that historical perspective, their endurance becomes far more brittle. Iran draws strength from its continuous survival and adaptation. This historical consciousness cannot be bombed out of existence, as Iran has proved.

Culturally, Iran is a nation of profound pride and sophistication. Iran’s deep intellectual, artistic, and philosophical heritage contributes to a strong national identity that resists humiliation. Any strategy predicated on coercion or submission fundamentally misunderstands this cultural reality. Iranians, regardless of their views on the regime, will not accept externally imposed dictates that compromise national dignity.

Geostrategically, Iran occupies one of the world’s most critical positions. Its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz—through which one-fifth of global energy supplies pass—grants it immense leverage, as demonstrated by Tehran’s closure of the Strait. Combined with its natural resources and substantial human capital, Iran is not easily isolated or neutralized. The failure to account for this reality has triggered a global economic disruption, especially in the oil and gas sectors.

Military Capabilities: The US and Israel failed to accurately assess Iran’s military capabilities, including its vast arsenal of missiles and drones, along with proxies capable of asymmetric warfare. Its armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have for years been in combat readiness and deeply committed to regime preservation. This ensured that Iran would absorb the attacks and continue to retaliate unabatedly.

The Memorandum of Understanding

The extent of the US and Israel’s miscalculation becomes clearer. The MOU ensures freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz—something that existed before the war—and reaffirmation that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons, a position Tehran has publicly maintained for years. These provisions amount to a return to the status quo rather than a strategic breakthrough.

Instead, Iran has achieved unprecedented milestones: control over the Strait of Hormuz at will, uncontested power in the Gulf, bringing Lebanon into the MOU, and partially realizing its regional hegemonic ambition. It has also shown it can withstand both the US and Israel, the most powerful global and regional militaries. All of this was predictable, but Trump and Netanyahu conveniently chose to ignore it.

Moreover, Iran has secured the suspension of crippling economic sanctions, the ability to export oil freely, and access to approximately $100 billion in previously frozen assets, and substantial international investment—potentially reaching $300 billion—to support Iran’s economic development.

The agreement defers critically crucial contentious issues, such as Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its regional proxy network, to future negotiations, effectively sidestepping Israel’s primary security concerns.

Negotiating these unresolved issues will not be quick or straightforward. A comprehensive agreement addressing Iran’s nuclear stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent—alongside its missile capabilities and regional proxies—will likely take many months, if not longer. The current 60-day timeline is unrealistic, albeit it may be mutually extended as stipulated in the MOU.

The Adverse Implications for Trump and Netanyahu Facing economic pressures and upcoming mid-term elections, Trump appears eager to declare a diplomatic victory and was compelled to make concessions, making a mockery of his earlier demand for unconditional surrender. Netanyahu, confronting an election in the fall, sought to demonstrate that a joint military action could achieve his long-standing strategic goals of regime change and permanently wiping out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles program, which has proven to be nothing but a mirage. Instead, both leaders now face the consequences of their arrogance toward and misreading of Iran.

The broader geopolitical fallout was equally troubling. The conflict has strained the US’ relations with European allies, disrupted global trade, and driven up energy prices, contributing to inflationary pressures worldwide. Gulf states, long reliant on American security guarantees, are reassessing their strategic alignments with the US amid the rise of Iran as the undisputed leading power in the Gulf, which will have lasting repercussions for the US’ strategic regional interests and influence.

Paradoxically, despite suffering significant military damage—including the destruction of naval assets, missile infrastructure, and key military installations—Iran has emerged with a strengthened strategic position. By failing to assess how Iran’s national character and resolve have shaped its reaction to the war, the US and Israel have inadvertently strengthened Iran and forced the US to engage it on terms that preserve its core interests.

The central lesson is unmistakable: wars conceived on illusion and waged in defiance of a nation’s historical identity do not transform that nation—they reaffirm it. In Iran’s case, force did not weaken the regime or bend its ambitions; it consolidated both. What was meant to compel surrender instead elevated Iran’s standing and leverage, leaving diplomacy to recover, at a higher cost, what military power failed to secure—and what, from the outset, it could never have achieved.

____________

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is President of the Institute for Humanitarian Conflict Resolution.