The war in Iran will end with the return of America | US-Israel War on Iran

The war against Iran that the United States and Israel started on February 28, 2026, will probably end with the return of America. The United States cannot continue the war without dire consequences. An excess could lead to the destruction of oil, gas, and mineral extraction facilities in the region, which would lead to a major global disaster. Iran can invest money that the United States can’t afford and the world can’t afford it.

The US – Israel war plan was a head-scratcher, sold to President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and David Barnea, director of the Mossad. His point was that a US-Israeli bombing campaign would undermine Iran’s government structure, nuclear program, and IRGC leadership to the point that the regime would be crushed. The United States and Israel would establish a legitimate government in Tehran.

Trump seems to believe that Iran will follow suit in Venezuela. The US mission in Venezuela in January 2026 removed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in what appears to have been an exchange between the CIA and elements within the Venezuelan government. The US won limited control, while most of Venezuela’s power remained. Trump seems to naively believe that the same thing will happen to Iran.

The Iranian mission, however, failed to create a government responsive to Tehran. Iran is not Venezuela, historically, technologically, culturally, geographically, militarily, demographically, or geopolitically. Everything that happened in Caracas had little to do with what would happen in Tehran.

The Iranian government is not broken. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which could not be beheaded, emerged with a strong internal command and a greater role in national security. The office of the chief executive was held; religious groups blocked the lists later; and the population resisted foreign invasion.

Two months later, Trump and Netanyahu have no government to replace Iran, no Iranian commitment to end the war, and no path to a successful war. The only option, and the one that the US seems to be taking, is to go back, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and none of the other things are between the US and Iran.

A number of factors explain America’s dangerous disintegration and Iran’s success.

First, American leaders criticized Iran wrongly. Iran is a great civilization with 5,000 years of history, deep culture, national courage, and pride. The Iranian government has not succumbed to the torture and bombing of the US, especially considering that the Iranian people remember how the US destroyed the Iranian democracy in 1953 by overthrowing the democratically elected government and establishing a police regime that lasted for 27 years.

Second, American leaders greatly underestimated Iran’s technological capabilities. Iran has the best engineering and mathematics in the world. It has built a defense infrastructure, with advanced missiles, a home-grown drone industry, and an indigenous launch capability. Iran’s history of technological development, built despite 40 years of sanctions, is a national phenomenon.

Third, military technology has evolved in a way that favors Iran. Iran’s ballistic missiles destroy a fraction of the US interceptors deployed against them. Iranian drones cost $20,000; US air defense missiles cost $4m. Iran’s anti-ship missiles, with six-barrel prices, threaten US destroyers that cost $2-3bn. Iran’s disagreement with the resistance of the area around the Gulf, air defense, drone and missile saturation, and sea resistance in the strait have made the cost of using American interests in Iran much higher than the United States can continue, especially considering the retaliatory damage that Iran can bring to neighboring countries.

Fourth, US policy has been irrational. The Iran war was decided by a small group of the president’s supporters at Mar-a-Lago, without an official agreement with the National Security Council that was closed last year. Trump’s director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, resigned on March 17 and public letter describing the “surprise room” used to deceive the president. The war came from a decision-making system where the tools of negotiation were turned off.

This was not a war of necessity, nor a war of choice. It was a mock battle. What he needed was pride. The United States was trying to maintain a global hegemony that it does not have, and Israel was trying to establish a regional hegemony that it will never have.

The bottom line, given all of this, is that the war could end and go back to things close to normal, except for three new points on the ground. First, Iran will have control over the Strait of Hormuz. Second, Iran’s deterrence status will be greatly increased. Third, the long-term US military presence in the Gulf will be greatly reduced. Some of the factors that supposedly led the US to attack Iran – Iran’s nuclear program, regional proxies, weapons – will be left where they were at the start of the war.

Even if the US withdraws, Iran will not press its advantage against its neighbors. Three reasons explain why. First, Iran has a long-term interest in cooperation with its Gulf neighbors, not an ongoing war. Second, Iran will not be interested in starting a war that has just ended. Third, Iran will be restrained, if there is a need for restraint, by the superpowers, Russia and China, who are seeking a stable and prosperous region. Iranian leaders understand this clearly, and have stopped fighting.

Trump will no doubt try to present the coming retreat as a major military and strategic victory. No such claim can be true. The truth is that Iran is far more successful than the United States understands; the decision to go to war was ambiguous; and basic military technology has shifted against the US. The American Empire cannot win a war against Iran at an acceptable economic, military, and political cost. What America can regain, however, is some wisdom. It is time for the US to end its regime change activities and return to international law and negotiation.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s influence.