Has the war made Iran stronger?

 The war was meant to weaken Iran. Nearly four months after the war began, it may have done the opposite. Instead of regime change or nuclear rollback, analysts say Tehran has emerged more militarised, more risk-tolerant and still firmly in control of its strategic programme, according to The New York Times.

The key question is whether the United States and Israel have achieved their stated objectives in Iran — including regime change, dismantling its nuclear programme and curbing its regional influence.

The outcome is increasingly disputed, with Iran appearing to have survived the conflict in a more hardened form, without major strategic concessions but having adapted under sustained pressure.

Has there been regime change in Iran?

Yes — but not in the way Washington or Israel expected.

Iran’s leadership structure has shifted significantly after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the early phase of the war, according to the report. A younger, more hardline and security-driven leadership has emerged, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) playing a far stronger role in governance.

Iran is now led by “a younger, more brazen generation in power,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at Chatham House.

Aaron David Miller, a former US diplomat at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the change as “a transition from divine power to hard power.”

Analysts cited in the report describe the system as “Islamic Republic 3.0” — a structure that is “less a theocracy and more a military junta dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.”

Has Iran been weakened militarily or strategically?

Not decisively.

While Iran has absorbed sustained military strikes and economic pressure, it has retained key elements of its nuclear infrastructure and technical knowledge.

US–Iran talks: Can a deal secure Gulf interests this time?

The report notes Iran still holds the capability to move toward nuclear “threshold status” — meaning it could develop a weapon if it chooses, without necessarily building one.

Regionally, Iran continues to exercise influence through allied groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Houthi militants.

What has changed inside Iran after the war?

Analysts say the most important shift is internal consolidation of power.

The IRGC is now seen as the dominant force in decision-making across security, foreign policy and parts of governance.

Iran’s external behaviour has also shifted. The New York Times reports that, for the first time in this phase of the conflict, Iran directly launched attacks against Israel rather than relying solely on proxy groups — a sign of increased risk tolerance.

As one analyst quoted in the report said, this reflects a shift from caution under earlier leadership to a more assertive posture under the current structure.

Has Iran become more aggressive externally?

Yes, according to the analysis.

Iran is also linking different theatres — including Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz — to its negotiating position with the United States.

Danny Citrinowicz, a retired Israeli military intelligence officer specialising in Iran, said Tehran’s leverage remains central to its deterrence strategy.

He warned that Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz gives it a “card to prevent Israel and the United States from attacking again.”

He added: “A war meant to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may have instead pushed it past a point of no return.”

What is Iran seeking in negotiations?

Iran is pushing for a limited nuclear understanding rather than full dismantlement.

According to the report, a possible framework includes temporary suspension of enrichment, export or dilution of part of its enriched uranium stockpile, and retention of nuclear infrastructure and knowledge.

Iran is also seeking sanctions relief and access to frozen assets, reportedly around $12 billion upfront with a second tranche linked to compliance.

Does Iran still have leverage?

Yes — significantly.

Analysts say Iran retains two key bargaining tools: Its nuclear know-how and enrichment capability, and its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The New York Times notes Iran’s economy is “in tatters” and could face renewed internal pressure once the war ends. However, analysts say Tehran believes Washington is under greater urgency to secure a deal and has therefore resisted major concessions.

Sanam Vakil said Iran’s long-term goals include deterring future attacks, dividing Gulf Arab positions, weakening Arab-Israeli alignment, and reducing US military presence in the region.

“The risk,” she said, “is that Iran will overplay its hand and miscalculate, as it has in the past.”

What is the biggest risk going forward?

Miscalculation.

Even if an early agreement is reached, analysts say deeper disputes are unlikely to be resolved, with nuclear negotiations likely to remain partial and incomplete.

“So we’re likely to be in a limbo state for a long time, which is to Iran’s advantage,” said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution.

She described the emerging situation as “no war, no peace,” adding that it keeps pressure on Washington while sustaining Iran’s leverage over energy markets and the Strait of Hormuz.

“The risk,” she warned, “is that Iran will overplay its hand and miscalculate, as it has in the past.”

GN