Trump claims victory, Tehran calls it a 'crushing defeat' — but analysts say Pakistan emerged as the Iran war's most consequential winner, with implications for India.6 min readJun 15, 2026 05:57 AM IST First published on: Jun 15, 2026 at 05:57 AM IST ShareWhatsapptwitterFacebookWashington and Tehran edge toward a ceasefire deal nearly four months into the conflict. (Photo: AI-Generated))Nearly four months after the United States and Israel launched their campaign against Iran, the two sides have agreed to end the war through a Pakistan-mediated peace deal, with a virtual signing ceremony scheduled to take place in Geneva, Switzerland, on 19 June even as the question of who actually won is producing sharply different answers from the parties involved and the analysts watching from the outside.What Trump has claimed, and what the record showsTrump has at various points described the US-Israeli campaign against Iran in sweeping terms, framing it as an unqualified win for Washington. Independent assessments complicate that picture considerably.According to a PBS NewsHour fact-check, while the US and Israel achieved real battlefield successes, Pentagon officials told Congress that more than 80 per cent of Iran’s missile, drone and naval defence industrial base had been destroyed or damaged, calling the outcome a total victory overlooks a significant shift in Iran’s favour.US President Donald Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. (AI-generated image)As one analyst told PBS, Iran has effectively become the “gatekeeper” of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint that normally carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, handing Tehran a form of durable economic leverage it did not have before the war began.That gap between Trump’s framing and the underlying reporting has been visible in the latest round of talks, too. While Trump said over the weekend that an agreement could be signed as early as Sunday and that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen to all shipping immediately afterwards, CNN reported that plans for an in-person signing ceremony in Europe had quietly been dropped in favour of an electronic signing driven in large part by Trump’s own travel schedule ahead of this week’s G7 summit in France.Story continues below this adCNN also reported that Washington and Tehran continue to offer somewhat conflicting public accounts of what the draft agreement actually contains, particularly on the scale of financial relief Iran would receive, with officials unable to say whether that gap reflects mere messaging differences or a deeper disagreement that could yet derail the deal.How Pakistan became the middlemanA year ago, Pakistan’s military leadership was, by Reuters’ account, still living down decades of American suspicion over alleged links to militant safe havens and nuclear proliferation. Today, Pakistan’s Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir is one of the most consequential intermediaries in the US-Iran standoff, a transformation that predates the war itself.The shift can be traced to June 2025, when Trump held an unusual one-on-one lunch with Munir at the White House as Washington weighed whether to join Israeli strikes on Iran. At the time, Pakistan’s foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, was already signalling that Islamabad was in direct contact with Tehran and willing to relay messages between the two sides.Also read Trump says US-Iran peace deal will reopen Strait of Hormuz, but Tehran isn’t convinced: Here’s what’s in the textOnce the war began in late February, Pakistan’s involvement deepened further. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke directly with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to push for de-escalation, while Munir held calls with Trump around the time Washington deferred a planned strike, according to Gulf News.Story continues below this adBy May, Munir had travelled to Tehran twice for in-person talks with senior Iranian officials, working alongside Turkey and Egypt as additional channels for indirect exchanges between US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the agreement with Iran is set to be signed on Sunday. (Photo: AP)The arrangement has not gone unquestioned in Washington. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham publicly raised doubts about trusting Pakistan, citing unverified claims that Iranian military aircraft had been sheltered at Pakistani bases. Trump has nonetheless repeatedly praised both Sharif and Munir, telling reporters their efforts had been “absolutely great”.For India, Pakistan’s rapid rehabilitation as a US-trusted broker after years in which Washington kept Islamabad at arm’s length is itself a notable shift in the regional balance, even as the immediate diplomatic focus stays fixed on the Iran-US track.So, who actually won?The answer depends entirely on who is being asked. Trump has claimed an unambiguous victory for the US and Israel. Iranian officials, who agreed to an earlier ceasefire in April, have described the outcome as a ‘crushing historic defeat’ inflicted on the US and Israel Tehran’s framing of survival as successStory continues below this adIndependent analysts are similarly split, and most conclude that nearly everyone lost something. A roundup of international commentary compiled by The Week cast Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the conflict’s principal loser, having failed in his long-stated goal of neutralising Iran’s nuclear programme while leaving Israel more internationally isolated than before.Also read US-Iran deal: In-person signing scrapped, Tehran denies Sunday planSeveral of the commentators cited placed Trump in similar territory, arguing that Washington failed to achieve regime change in Tehran and that Iran’s retention of effective control over Hormuz amounts to the war’s most consequential strategic outcome.A separate analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies framed the conflict in terms of mismatched goals: Washington’s aims ranged from ending Iran’s nuclear programme to outright regime change, while Tehran’s central objective was simply to survive the bombing campaign with the regime intact, an objective Iran has, so far, met.Most ReadUS President Donald Trump and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. (Photo: AP/File Photo)Newsweek’s 100-day assessment offered a similar mixed verdict: Iran’s conventional military capacity has been severely degraded, but the Islamic Republic remains in power and has used its leverage over Hormuz to shape the terms of any eventual settlement. Read moreStory continues below this adNot every analyst accepts the winners-and-losers framing at all. A commentary for the Center for International Policy argued that focusing on geopolitical “wins” risks losing sight of the war’s human cost inside Iran, where ordinary residents have borne the brunt of months of bombing.What does appear consistent across most assessments is that the countries most often described as net beneficiaries of the war are not the ones that did the fighting: China, a major buyer of the oil that moves through Hormuz, and Pakistan, whose military leadership has used the crisis to rebuild a relationship with Washington that had been strained for years.(With inputs from agencies)AdvertisementLoading Recommendations...Advertisement