DistantNews
Support us
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฉ Indonesia /Conflict & Security

Gulf War: When Everyone Claims Victory

From Republika · () Indonesian

Translated from Indonesian, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

Analysis Named sources Context piece
  • The Gulf War between Israel, the United States, and Iran has resulted in all parties claiming victory, creating a paradox.
  • Israel states it weakened Iran's military and nuclear capabilities, while Washington achieved strategic goals.
  • Iran claims it withstood pressure and emerged with a stronger bargaining position, challenging traditional notions of war's outcome.

The recent Gulf War involving Israel, the United States, and Iran presents a unique paradox: all three principal parties are claiming victory. Israel asserts it successfully degraded Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. Simultaneously, Washington reports its military operations met strategic objectives. Iran, in turn, contends it withstood the combined military pressure and emerged from the conflict with a stronger negotiating position than before.

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

โ€” Carl von ClausewitzA quote from his seminal work 'On War' (1832), used to frame the discussion on military success versus political objectives.

This situation prompts a re-evaluation of what constitutes victory in international relations. As highlighted by Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz in "On War," war is a continuation of politics by other means. Military success, therefore, is merely a tool; the ultimate measure lies in whether the political objectives behind the war are achieved and translated into sustained political advantage.

The conflict offers critical lessons for the U.S. and Israel, demonstrating their impressive military technological superiority. However, it also underscores the limitations of military might as an instrument for imposing political outcomes. Destroying an adversary's military installations does not automatically compel a change in their political will. This aligns with Robert A. Pape's findings in "Bombing to Win," which suggest air power is effective at destroying targets but less so at coercing political change.

Air power is highly effective at destroying physical targets, but far more difficult to use to coerce an opponent to change its political decisions.

โ€” Robert A. PapeSummarizing findings from his book 'Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War' (1996) regarding the limits of military force.

For Iran, the lesson is equally significant. Nate Swanson's article in Foreign Affairs warns that Iran's claimed victory could become a burden if not managed wisely. The nation's primary challenge shifts from winning the war to winning the peace. This is particularly relevant as discussions arise about leveraging Iran's strategic position in the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting that the true test of this conflict's outcome lies in the post-war political landscape.

The victory claimed by Tehran can turn into a burden if not managed wisely.

โ€” Nate SwansonFrom his article 'Iran Won the War but May Lose the Peace' in Foreign Affairs (2026), cautioning Iran about post-war management.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Republika in Indonesian. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.