For weeks, the US–Israel war with Iran was measured in strikes, targets, and retaliation across multiple fronts. Now, under a fragile two‑week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan and announced on April 7, the metric has shifted. The immediate focus is no longer just on battlefield damage, but on whether the conflict has brought bigger fundamental changes and whether the ceasefire can hold.The truce brought a temporary halt to large‑scale US and Israeli strikes on Iran and opened a narrow diplomatic window. However, reports of renewed missile alerts and attacks across the Gulf almost immediately cast doubt on its durability. In broad terms, the emerging picture is mixed and unresolved: Tehran has absorbed significant military pressure, key strategic leverage remains in play, and the political and military apparatus continues to function despite high‑profile casualties. At the same time, the conflict has exacted heavy costs on economies, civilians, and the wider Middle East security environment.
A fragile pause
The ceasefire has not fully quieted the battlefield. Within hours of its announcement, missile alerts were reported in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and other Gulf states.Iran’s state and semi‑official media, cited by Reuters, reported that oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz were halted after what they described as an Israeli “ceasefire breach,” and that Tehran could withdraw from the agreement if fighting in Lebanon continued. Even the understanding of key provisions differs among parties. The United States insists that safe, coordinated passage through Hormuz was part of the ceasefire terms; Iran says passage is conditional and subject to coordination with its armed forces. Israel, while backing the truce with Washington, continues operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, arguing the ceasefire does not apply in that region.
Leadership attrition and institutional continuity
One of the most striking aspects of this conflict has been the changes in Iran’s senior political and military leadership. Despite sustained US‑Israeli strikes targeting command structures early in the war, Iran’s broader governance apparatus has continued to function with replacements stepping in where leaders were killed or incapacitated.Notable confirmed casualties include Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, killed in a strike on February 28, 2026, a rare and historically significant loss at the very top, followed by Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and several senior military figures, including Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, IRGC commander Mohammad Pakpour, all killed in subsequent strikes.
Despite these losses, Tehran has swiftly appointed successors and maintained centralised decision‑making. This continuity complicates simplistic narratives about “regime collapse,” with the state’s institutions remaining functional even amid leadership attrition.Public messaging has diverged sharply: President Donald Trump declared that the campaign had achieved “regime change” and insisted negotiations were now occurring with “different people,” while Iranian officials framed the pause as a strategic victory that compelled adversaries to accept conditions without eroding core institutional control.
Strait of Hormuz: Central, complicated and contested
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude oil and LNG flows in peacetime, has been a strategic flashpoint of the conflict.Iran claims its strategic control over Hormuz While the ceasefire includes provisions for coordinated passage, Iran’s conditions have tempered expectations of a full reopening. Tehran insists that vessels must coordinate with its military before transit and has resisted the idea of unrestricted shipping without oversight.US statements suggested potential cooperation, with President Trump, in a statement to ABC News, floating the idea of a “joint venture” with Iran to manage shipping and fee structures in the strait, an arrangement that would formalise Iran’s control and generate revenue.Trump says the US will take control and get Hormuz opened.
Nuclear and missile programmes: Unresolved core issues
At the heart of the crisis remain Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, two of the original drivers of the conflict that still defy comprehensive resolution. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium remains within the country and has not been seized or rendered fully inoperable, even though some enrichment facilities were struck early in the conflict. Tehran insists it retains the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes while denying ambitions for nuclear weapons.Competing ceasefire frameworks also showcase these differences. In the Farsi version of Iran’s 10‑point ceasefire plan, the phrase “acceptance of enrichment” for its nuclear programme was included, a term absent from English versions circulated by Iranian diplomats and foreign journalists, signalling Tehran’s insistence on safeguarding its nuclear rights as part of any settlement.Meanwhile, US demands during negotiations have included constraints on enrichment and broader limitations on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure, with Trump going as far as to link the ceasefire sustenance to curbs on uranium and nuclear developments. That gap remains one of the central stumbling blocks in diplomatic discussions.These differences are also reflected in the broader structure of Iran’s proposed 10-point ceasefire framework, which outlines conditions on sanctions relief, nuclear recognition, and security guarantees. While not all elements have been publicly detailed or accepted by other parties, the framework signals that Tehran views the ceasefire not just as a pause in fighting, but as part of a wider negotiation over its nuclear rights, economic restrictions and regional security role.
Military posture and operational reach
Although Iran’s military infrastructure has sustained significant damage, including to air defence networks, missile forces, and command organisations, it has not been dismantled. Key strike capabilities continue to operate well into the ceasefire phase.US and Israeli strikes have partially degraded Iran’s ballistic missile and drone inventories, but intelligence assessments indicate that Tehran retains sufficient firepower to maintain a “war of attrition” and a credible regional deterrent, according to experts at The Soufan Center. The group notes that while many launchers and production sites were hit, Iran’s dispersed and fortified deployment strategies have preserved operational capabilities.US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in his latest media briefing said that while US forces struck large portions of Iran’s missile and air‑defence infrastructure, they remain prepared to resume operations if Tehran fails to comply with the ceasefire. According to Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, more than 13,000 targets have been struck in operations against Iran, destroying 80% of the country’s air defense systems and attacking 90% of its weapons factories. Speaking at a Pentagon briefing, Caine added that more than 90% of Iran’s regular naval fleet has been sunk, “including all major surface combatants” with 150 ships now “at the bottom of the ocean”.However, Iran has not independently confirmed US assertions about the scale of damage to its military capabilities and continues to maintain that its defence systems and strike capacity remain in place and ready.Independent analysts also emphasised the resilience of Iran’s missile and drone programs. The Council on Foreign Relations noted that Iran’s ability to disperse launchers, command units, and production facilities underground or into fortified locations has limited the effectiveness of air strikes, allowing it to conserve stockpiles for retaliatory use. This redundancy has made total destruction of Iranian strike systems difficult, even under sustained bombardment.Further complicating the picture, US and allied air‑defence systems face operational strain from the volume and diversity of Iranian unmanned attack drones, which are harder to detect and intercept than conventional missiles. Defense analysts warn that continued drone salvos could deplete interceptor inventories, highlighting the strategic value Iran places on unmanned systems.
Also, the conflict has also shown that US forces incurred losses and faced resistance from Iranian air defences.A US F-15E fighter jet was shot down over Iran during operations, marking one of the most significant aerial losses of the conflict. Both crew members ejected. One was rescued within hours, while the second remained on the ground for nearly two days before being extracted in a high-risk rescue mission involving multiple aircraft and special forces.The rescue operation itself came under fire, with conflicting accounts on aircraft losses. US-linked accounts said some aircraft were destroyed by their own forces after becoming unusable to prevent them from falling into Iranian hands. Iranian officials, however, claimed their air defences shot down multiple US aircraft involved in the mission.A US A-10 attack aircraft was also lost during the conflict, with the pilot ejecting and surviving.The US military has officially confirmed that 13 American service members were killed during the conflict, with over 350–370 personnel wounded, most of them sustaining non-fatal injuries and later returning to duty.Earlier in the war, casualties included troops killed in Iranian drone and missile strikes on US bases in the region, as well as additional deaths linked to operational incidents, including an aircraft crash.Iran has also repeatedly claimed it shot down several US drones, particularly MQ-9 Reapers, though the exact number of such losses has not been independently confirmed.Throughout the conflict, Iran has continued to launch drones and ballistic missiles against Israel, US bases, and Gulf Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Even in the hours after the ceasefire announcement, Gulf states reported intercepting incoming projectiles, reflecting that Iranian long-range systems remain functional.
Regional impact: Broader costs and diplomatic reverberations
Even as the ceasefire reduces overt violence, the war’s effects resonate across the Middle East and beyond. Gulf Arab states have suffered damage to oil and energy facilities, transportation hubs, and other infrastructure, shaking confidence in regional stability and investment climates.Additionally, the financial cost of the conflict has been substantial. Pentagon officials told US lawmakers that the first six days of the war with Iran cost at least $11.3 billion in direct military operations, including munitions and strike sorties, a tally that did not include the expense of deploying naval groups, aircraft and personnel to the region, according to various US media reports. Independent fiscal analysts, including the Penn Wharton Budget Model, in a report before the ceasefire estimated that direct US military spending on the Iran campaign had climbed into the tens of billions of dollars, with projections around $27–28 billion after about a month of operations and potential total expenditures of $38–47 billion by late April. These figures included forces, logistics, munitions, and deployed assets, highlighting the fiscal burden of sustained combat. Now, the full cost of the campaign will become clearer after the current two-week ceasefire and if any subsequent operations happen after the period elapses or if the fragile truce breaks.
For Iran, the economic consequences are severe too. Iranian officials and analysts describe the domestic economy as “shattered,” with critical infrastructure damaged, widespread unemployment and steep increases in the cost of living, in some cases by as much as 40 per cent since the war began, exacerbating social hardships and undermining economic activityYet, despite the devastation, Iran says it retains key elements of its economic and institutional framework, including state control over vital sectors and the capacity to stabilise essential services, offering a narrow but significant foundation for recovery.In this context, international reactions have been mixed. The United Nations Secretary‑General and European leaders welcomed the pause and emphasised civilian protection, while analysts warned that the temporary ceasefire may not resolve deep disputes over nuclear rights, missile programmes, sanctions and broader regional security architecture.
US–Israel alignment: Public unity, underlying differences?
From Iran’s perspective, another important takeaway could be the rumoured lack of full alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv. While both sides continue to project unity, their positions during and after the ceasefire point to differences in priorities and end goals.Trump has emphasised negotiation, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility of winding down the conflict, even as he alternates between threats and diplomacy. In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained that the ceasefire is “not the end” and that Israel retains the option to resume military action, keeping its “finger on the trigger.”Reporting and analysis further indicate that while both countries share short-term military objectives, their endgames diverge — with Washington more open to a negotiated outcome and Israel preparing for a longer campaign aimed at weakening Iran more fundamentally.For Tehran, this distinction matters: it suggests that even if the US leans toward de-escalation, continued Israeli operations could keep the conflict active, complicating the ceasefire’s durability, which is already showing cracks with Iran’s objection to Tel Aviv’s strikes in Lebanon.
A mixed outcome and uncertain future
The ceasefire shows a conflict that has changed conditions on the ground but left many core drivers unresolved. Iran’s political and military structures remain functionally intact despite leadership losses. Strategic leverage in areas like Hormuz and missile capability persists, and diplomatic engagement continues. At the same time, deep mistrust, competing demands, and regional conflict dynamics mean this truce is better understood as a tactical pause than a stable peace.Whether this pause evolves into a durable settlement, or simply marks the interval before renewed escalation, remains an open question.
