Iran-United States: Competing Narratives of Victory at the Core of a Diplomatic Deadlock

05/05/2026

Author

Three weeks after the ceasefire between Iran and the Israeli-American coalition, a diplomatic impasse has taken hold. Not for lack of negotiation channels, but because each side now sees itself as the victor. This rare configuration transforms diplomacy into a continuation of the balance of power, making any compromise politically costly.

A Negotiation Paralyzed by Competing Claims of Victory

Three weeks after the end of hostilities, indirect talks between Tehran and Washington-facilitated in part by Pakistan-continue without producing tangible results.

This deadlock cannot be explained by a lack of interest in reaching an agreement, nor by irreconcilable differences over technical issues-nuclear policy, ballistic missiles, or regional security. On these matters, elements of compromise had already begun to emerge during the Geneva negotiations on the eve of the conflict.

The Explanation Lies Deeper: Both Sides Believe They Have Won the War

Under such conditions, any concession becomes politically risky. To yield would be to undermine the narrative of victory carefully constructed for domestic audiences. Negotiation thus ceases to be a space for compromise and becomes an extension of the conflict by other means.

Washington: Tactical Superiority, Strategic Failure

From Washington’s perspective, the operation launched on February 28-ordered by Donald Trump despite intelligence assessments indicating that Iran had not made the political decision to acquire nuclear weapons-is portrayed as a military success.

The arguments advanced rest on tangible elements: overwhelming military and technological superiority, the destruction of a significant portion of Iran’s naval and air capabilities, targeted strikes on strategic infrastructure, and the elimination of senior military and political figures. Some estimates reported by CBS suggest that roughly one-third of Iran’s ballistic capabilities and 40% of its launchers were neutralized.

Yet These Tactical Gains Have Not Translated Into Strategic Outcomes

None of the initial objectives have been achieved, no regime change, explicitly referenced in Donald Trump’s early statements, no lasting dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, no decisive reduction of its ballistic capabilities, and no interruption of its support for regional proxy networks.

This gap between military performance and political outcome reflects a well-documented constant of asymmetric conflicts: technological superiority does not guarantee strategic victory.

Tehran: A Political Victory Built on Resilience

The Iranian interpretation follows a different logic: that of regime survival as the primary measure of victory.

The Islamic Republic considers that it has prevailed against two major military powers, including a global superpower and a state widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. This perception does not deny the losses suffered but reflects a different hierarchy of priorities.

The central point is the failure of regime change. Despite the elimination of senior officials-including at the highest levels of the state-the Iranian system has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience and continuity. Command structures were rapidly reconstituted, retaliatory capabilities maintained, and the core architecture of the security apparatus preserved.

Domestically, the war has produced the opposite of its intended effect. Where part of the population initially hoped the conflict might lead to greater freedom and democratic change, strikes on civilian infrastructure-schools, universities, historical and cultural sites, industrial facilities, and bridges-have triggered a rally-around-the-flag effect. The defense of sovereignty and territorial integrity has taken precedence over democratic aspirations. Thus, the pro-Trump and pro-Netanyahu positions taken by the external opposition, led by Reza Pahlavi, have helped erode its credibility by framing it as aligned with the interests of the aggressors. In the short to medium term, this dynamic has neutralized the protest movement that emerged in January 2026.

Militarily, Iran retains significant capabilities. While part of its arsenal has been destroyed, estimates reported by CBS suggest that 70% of its ballistic missiles, 60% of its launchers, and a substantial share of its drone fleet remain operational. Its asymmetric naval strategy, based on dispersed and mobile units, also remains intact. Its ability to continue conducting impactful strikes-including attacks against U.S. positions in the Gulf-has been framed domestically as evidence of resilience.

Above all, Tehran believes it has strengthened its position at the geostrategic level.

A Shifting Regional Balance of Power

The conflict has deeply shaken the security architecture of the Persian Gulf.

Iranian strikes on energy and industrial infrastructure across Gulf Arab states have exposed the vulnerability of economic and security models built on stability and external protection. More importantly, they have revealed the limits of U.S. security guarantees.

For Gulf monarchies, whose economic models depend on stability and international attractiveness, this vulnerability constitutes a structural risk. Over time, it may lead to a diversification of security partnerships or a redefinition of their relationship with the United States-an objective long pursued by the Islamic Republic.

The Strait of Hormuz: A Strategic Geo-Economic Lever

One of the key lessons of the conflict is the centrality of the Strait of Hormuz. Beyond the regional theater, the economic consequences of the war have reinforced Iran’s strategic narrative.

Roughly 20% of global oil supply transits through the strait, along with a significant share of liquefied natural gas. Disruptions during the conflict contributed to a sharp rise in energy prices-with oil moving from around $70 per barrel before the war to levels approaching or exceeding $100 at times-reviving global inflationary pressures.

Beyond hydrocarbons, the strait also channels critical flows essential to industrial supply chains, further enhancing its strategic importance.

Economies dependent on energy imports appear increasingly exposed to shocks that Iran, accustomed to decades of sanctions, believes it is better equipped to absorb.

In this context, Iran’s ability to disrupt or partially control these flows constitutes a major lever of power. It reinforces the perception in Tehran of a relative reversal in vulnerability: economies dependent on energy imports appear increasingly exposed to shocks that Iran, accustomed to decades of sanctions, believes it is better equipped to absorb.

Accelerating Geo-Economic Realignments

The conflict also fits into broader trends reshaping the international system.

The gradual-yet politically significant-expansion of energy transactions denominated in yuan reflects a broader effort by several BRICS countries to diversify away from the dollar. While the dollar remains dominant, these developments point to an emerging fragmentation of the global financial system.

At the same time, the resilience of Iranian exports - with more than 34 tankers carrying Iranian oil reportedly managing to circumvent the U.S. blockade - illustrates Tehran’s ability to withstand this pressure more effectively than the United States and its allies.

A Structural Strategic Deadlock

The current impasse thus stems from a paradox: a war that has produced two mutually incompatible narratives of victory.

In such configurations, well known in the study of asymmetric conflicts, peace becomes elusive not because of technical obstacles, but because of the political cost of compromise.

Neither Washington nor Tehran can afford to appear as conceding.

In such configurations, well known in the study of asymmetric conflicts, peace becomes elusive not because of technical obstacles, but because of the political cost of compromise.

At the same time, a renewed escalation appears unlikely in the short term. Economic, industrial, and political constraints weigh heavily on both sides-particularly on the United States, amid inflationary pressures, upcoming electoral deadlines, and growing limits on certain military capabilities.

Toward a Redefinition of the Regional Order?

Taken together, this sequence suggests a relative shift in the balance of power.

A war intended to contain Iran has, paradoxically, strengthened some of its strategic assets: its capacity to disrupt energy markets, its short-term internal consolidation, and its regional assertiveness.

That said, the durability of this dynamic will depend on Iran’s ability to translate these short-term gains into lasting advantages, in a context still marked by domestic economic constraints and sustained international pressure.

From this perspective, Iran is no longer engaging in diplomacy as a search for compromise, but as a means of securing recognition of its altered status.

Its implicit objective is broader: to challenge U.S. strategic dominance in the Middle East and shape the contours of a new regional order.

This posture is reinforced by growing fractures within the Western camp: tensions within NATO, divergences with Asian allies, and increasing polarization in U.S. domestic politics.

In this context, a negotiated outcome appears inevitable in the medium term. But it will likely require a strategic adjustment on Washington’s part-one that implicitly acknowledges the evolving regional balance of power in Iran’s favor.

The irony of the sequence is striking: on the eve of the conflict, it was Tehran that appeared ready to make significant concessions. Today, the dynamic has reversed. And with it, the very terms of negotiation.

Copyright image : Atta KENARE / AFP
Rally in support of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran on April 27, 2026.