By ABDULRAZAQ MAGAJI

War, according to Carl von Clausewitz, is politics by other means. But in the paused U.S/Israel confrontation with Iran, the more pressing question is whether politics has actually been served, or merely complicated. The emerging answer is uncomfortable as all parties claim victory in a confrontation that no one emphatically won.

Viewed from a narrow military standpoint, the United States and Israel appeared dominant as their joint air campaigns devastated Iranian infrastructure, degraded missile capabilities, and allegedly crippled large segments of Iran’s navy and air defenses. In classical battlefield terms, victory looks like superior technology, precision strikes, and control of the skies. Somehow, President Donald Trump and his handlers have leaned heavily into this narrative, describing the outcome as a “total and complete victory.” Yet, in reality, war is not decided solely by dropping bombs, rather, it is measured by whether political objectives are achieved. Here, the picture becomes far less flattering.

The United States entered the war to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, neutralize its regional proxies, and possibly even trigger regime change. None of these objectives was realized. Iran’s nuclear programme might have suffered a setback, but certainly not eliminated. Its regional influence might have been weakened, but not extinguished and, most significantly, the regime in Tehran remains firmly in power.

If survival is victory, then Iran has a strong claim to it. Indeed, Tehran’s strategy was never to outgun its adversaries in conventional warfare. Instead, it sought to endure, impose costs, and widen the battlefield. By disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and targeting regional allies, Iran succeeded in shaking global energy markets and raising oil prices, sending economic shockwaves across the globe. This is where the war’s paradox lies: militarily, Iran lost ground but, strategically, it gained more leverage.

The economic consequences have been particularly damaging for the United States and its allies. Rising fuel costs, strained supply chains, and the depletion of advanced munitions have imposed long-term burdens. Moreover, Washington’s unilateral approach, without broad international consensus, strained alliances and fueled global criticism. In other words, America might have won, but it has succeeded in complicating the broader geopolitical contest.

Similarly, Israel’s position is a mixed bag. On one hand, it enjoyed superior sky power over Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. On the other hand, Israel remains locked in a cycle of ongoing confrontation, particularly beyond the scope of the ceasefire. Security has been improved in the short term, but long-term stability remains elusive. And then there is the ceasefire itself which, essentially, is a fragile, temporary pause brokered under intense pressure. The fact that negotiations were necessary at all to knock out the ceasefire underscores a central truth that neither neither the United States and Israel on ine hand, and Iran on the other could impose a decisive outcome.

So, who lost? The most obvious losers are the ordinary people in Iran, Israel, and the Gulf States. Socioeconomic dislocations, infrastructure damage and economic hardship have deepened. In essence, civilians across the region have paid a huge price, from missile strikes to economic instability.

Beyond human costs, the international system itself has suffered. Energy markets have been destabilized, diplomatic norms eroded, and the risk of wider regional war heightened. Even countries far removed from the conflict have felt the ripple effects through inflation and economic uncertainty.

Ultimately, this war reinforces a familiar lesson that modern conflicts hardly produce clean and clear winners. Instead, they generate layers of partial victories and enduring losses.

What this boils down to is that the United States and Israel may claim tactical success; on its part, Iran can credibly claim strategic survival. But neither side has achieved a decisive, lasting resolution. In that sense, the real verdict is not that one side won and the other lost, but that all parties are now entangled in an even more uncertain landscape than ever.

And that, perhaps, is the most dangerous outcome of this needless and unprovoked assault.

•Magaji magaji778@gmail.com writes from Abuja.

PHOTO CAPTION: •Vice President JD Vance arriving for a meeting with Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, in Islamabad, Pakistan, for peace talks about the Iran war on Saturday.Credit…Pool photo by Jacquelyn Martin

Update news