Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has claimed that Tehran emerged victorious from its conflict with the United States and Israel, saying the two countries failed to achieve any of the nine objectives they had set at the beginning of the war.
Ghalibaf made the comments on Sunday as the confrontation between Iran and the US remained unresolved, with negotiations and tensions continuing alongside the fragile ceasefire.
GHAlIBAF CALLS IRAN'S WAR OUTCOME A VICTORY
Ghalibaf said Iran had prevailed in both the military and political dimensions of the conflict.
He argued that the claim was not based on Iran physically destroying the US or Israeli militaries.
Instead, he said the victory should be measured against the objectives Washington and Tel Aviv had publicly declared at the start of their campaign.
According to Ghalibaf, Iran successfully prevented the US and Israel from achieving those objectives.
He described this as a major defeat for both countries.
The Iranian speaker also linked the military outcome to diplomacy, arguing that the June 17 memorandum of understanding helped translate what Tehran considers military gains into political and diplomatic leverage.
IRAN SAYS JUNE 17 AGREEMENT STRENGTHENED ITS POSITION
Ghalibaf described the June 17 memorandum as a “document of honour” that consolidated Iran's position politically and diplomatically.
Iranian officials have repeatedly presented negotiations with Washington as an extension of the conflict rather than a separate process.
Ghalibaf previously referred to this approach as “diplomacy of power”, arguing that military resistance strengthened Iran's position at the negotiating table.
The claim reflects Tehran's broader narrative that its ability to retaliate against a militarily superior opponent prevented the US and Israel from achieving their strategic objectives.
HOW THE IRAN-US CONFLICT BEGAN
The conflict began on February 28, when Israel and the United States launched a major military campaign against Iran following the collapse of negotiations over Tehran's nuclear programme.
US officials said the operation was intended to significantly weaken Iran's military and nuclear capabilities, among other strategic goals.
The fighting subsequently expanded across the region.
Iran launched attacks against US interests and military bases, while the conflict created wider concerns over energy supplies and maritime trade because of the importance of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran used its ability to threaten the strategically important waterway as a major source of leverage.
US AND ISRAEL DISPUTE IRAN'S VICTORY CLAIM
Iran's assessment is strongly disputed by Washington and Israel.
The US and Israel have maintained that their military operations inflicted significant damage on Iran's military and strategic capabilities.
That creates two very different narratives surrounding the outcome of the conflict.
Tehran argues that its survival and ability to continue military operations demonstrate that Washington and Tel Aviv failed to achieve their central objectives.
The US and Israel, meanwhile, maintain that their strikes substantially degraded Iran's capabilities.
The competing claims mean there is no shared assessment of what constitutes victory.
CEASEFIRE AND DIPLOMATIC TENSIONS CONTINUE
A June interim agreement was intended to halt hostilities and create space for negotiations over issues including Iran's nuclear programme.
The arrangement later deteriorated after US President Donald Trump declared it over in July.
Tehran accused Washington of violating the agreement and subsequently suspended direct military and diplomatic engagement with the US.
Since then, Iran has continued to use negotiations and regional mediation as leverage.
Its demands include sanctions relief and the unfreezing of Iranian assets.
Indirect discussions have involved mediators including Pakistan and Qatar.
WHY THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ MATTERS
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most important elements of the confrontation.
The narrow waterway is crucial to global energy trade, making any prolonged disruption a potential threat to oil markets and international shipping.
Iran has sought to use its influence over the waterway as leverage during the confrontation and has pushed for a mechanism governing its operation, a proposal opposed by the United States.
For Tehran, control and influence over Hormuz provide an important strategic bargaining tool.
For Washington and its allies, ensuring freedom of navigation through the waterway remains a major priority.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Ghalibaf's comments underline how far apart Iran and the US remain in their assessment of the conflict.
Tehran sees the confrontation as proof that it successfully resisted American and Israeli pressure and converted military resistance into diplomatic leverage.
Washington and Israel continue to emphasise the damage inflicted on Iran's military and strategic infrastructure.
With the ceasefire framework under strain and negotiations still unresolved, the next phase is likely to depend on whether both sides can turn their competing claims of strength into a workable diplomatic settlement.
For now, Iran's leadership is presenting the conflict as a military and diplomatic victory, while the US and Israel maintain a fundamentally different assessment of the outcome.
Conversation
Be kind and stay on topic. Comments are moderated; abuse, spam and personal attacks are removed. Report a problem