On April 7, President Donald Trump and the Islamic Republic of Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, the first reprieve in hostilities since the United States and Israel began attacks on Iran nearly six weeks ago. As part of the agreement, Iran is to lift its effective blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which 20 percent of the world’s daily oil and gas shipments move, for the duration of the ceasefire. The United States and Iran will now enter a two-week period of negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive peace.
To say the ceasefire is tenuous is an understatement: Iran has already launched strikes on Israel and several Arab Gulf countries, while Israel has taken the position that the pause in hostilities does not apply to Lebanon, where the Israel Defense Forces responded to the ceasefire by conducting its largest bombardment of the war. It is unclear whether Iran has, or actually intends to, open the Strait of Hormuz to traffic, conditioning passage on prior “coordination” with the Iranian military and “technical limitations.” While the United States and Iran both claim the talks will be based on a 10-point Iranian proposal, each is disputing the contents of the plan in question.
Whether or not this ceasefire represents an enduring end to the war, the result of the six-week campaign is incontestable: The United States is in a weaker position than before the war. Air strikes have killed experienced Iranian leaders, taken out Iranian military assets, and destroyed critical infrastructure and manufacturing capacity. However, the Islamic Republic can replace its leaders, rebuild its factories, and produce new equipment. In other words, U.S. success in the war is reversible, leaving the United States without any long-term strategic gains vis-a-vis Iran. For all intents and purposes, Iran has emerged the winner from Operation Epic Fury.
Whether or not this ceasefire represents an enduring end to the war, the result of the six-week campaign is incontestable: The United States is in a weaker position than before the war.
The costs of the war are obvious. American, Iranian, and other innocent civilians across the region have needlessly lost their lives; President Trump has caused indelible damage to America’s moral reputation; the global economy remains in crisis and at best will take months to recover; and the United States has lost or depleted some of its most important military equipment and munitions needed for more dangerous adversaries.
The moral costs
President Trump and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth launched the campaign in Iran with no clearly articulated aims, no clear exit plan, and without the legally required consent of Congress. Throughout the conflict, each regularly made public statements that only could be interpreted as calls to violate the laws of war. Trump suggested he would destroy the Iranian “civilization” and threatened to bomb civilian infrastructure, while Secretary Hegseth enjoined the U.S. military to give “no quarter” to its adversaries. In nakedly calling for U.S. servicemembers to commit war crimes, Trump and Hegseth have sullied the reputation of the U.S. armed services and demonstrated that the president and secretary of defense are unfit for positions of high command.
Worse yet, U.S. and Israeli strikes have killed more than 1700 Iranian civilians, including 254 children. Added to these casualties are the millions of Iranians and Arabs who have been displaced from their homes across the region. With attacks on health care facilities and other civilian infrastructure by both sides, a humanitarian crisis is certain to persist despite the ceasefire. And, though civilians in the region have borne the brunt of suffering, the ceasefire is also unlikely to ease the suffering of the 13 American families who have lost a loved one in this profoundly unnecessary war. The servicemembers who died over the past weeks leave behind communities across the country who will mourn these losses long after the war has concluded.
The precision and professionalism of the U.S. military have long been a source of pride among the armed forces and the broader American public. Though the war has demonstrated the superior ability of the U.S. military in achieving tactical objectives, it has also shown the world the scale of the potential harm that the world’s most powerful fighting force can inflict under a morally debased president and secretary of defense who worship at the altar of “lethality.” Far from making the United States stronger, Trump and Hegseth have left the world with the impression of a volatile, unreliable, and malevolent military superpower, playing directly into the hands of China’s efforts to cast itself as a responsible world actor.
Far from making the United States stronger, Trump and Hegseth have left the world with the impression of a volatile, unreliable, and malevolent military superpower, playing directly into the hands of China’s efforts to cast itself as a responsible world actor.
The economic costs
The war has been incredibly costly for all parties involved, including the United States. Iran’s combined success in shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and damaging Gulf Arab oil and gas infrastructure has removed 10 percent of the world’s oil supply from the market. This created, according to the head of the International Energy Agency, a global energy crisis “more serious than the ones in 1973, 1979 and 2022 together.” The spike in energy prices has translated into higher costs for consumers, especially among U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. And, despite America’s much-hyped “energy independence,” American consumers saw dramatic price increases at the pump, surging at its peak by 39 percent from $2.98 to $4.14 per gallon.
Despite America’s much-hyped “energy independency,” American consumers saw dramatic price increases at the pump, surging at its peak by 39 percent from $2.98 to $4.14 per gallon.
While energy prices have started to decline with the announcement of the ceasefire, the extent and speed of the descent will depend both on how long it takes to repair key infrastructure and Iran’s willingness to allow freedom of navigation through the strait. That Trump has effectively given Iran the keys to the Strait of Hormuz augurs poorly for future energy prices. Iran’s role, in and of itself, will perpetuate volatility in energy markets and increase costs for Americans. In a deeply troubling development, the Islamic Republic is currently charging a $2 million “transit fee” for ships passing through the strait, which will exert upward pressure on global energy prices.
Optimistic assessments assume that it will take months to bring all suspended oil streams back online. More importantly, economists project that prices are unlikely to return to prewar levels even after supplies are fully restored due to the increased political risk in the Persian Gulf. All of that is to say that consumers should expect to face high prices for some time to come, and with higher energy costs, the risks of inflation will grow.
$33B
Estimated amount spent by the U.S. Department of Defense in 39 days of war with Iran.
From a budgetary perspective, Operation Epic Fury was enormously expensive. In just 39 days of war, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is likely to have spent more than $33 billion. Though President Trump was already seeking an unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense budget for Fiscal Year 2027, the administration will likely seek to leverage these expenses to pursue even more funding for the DOD. In a tight budgetary environment in which President Trump has been looking to cut vital social spending, Trump entered a costly and needless war and may now present the costs of this war as necessary defense requirements—a ready-made pretext for further cuts to social programs under the guise of fiscal responsibility. If this transpires, the American people will suffer as much due to the war as has American national security.
The strategic costs
The first days of the war took out Iranian leadership, including most significantly Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. But the killing of Khamenei has only yielded an Iranian leadership that is more dependent on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been the primary driver of anti-American actions in Iran for the past five decades. After having lost his entire family in U.S.-Israeli strikes, Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has taken up his father’s mantle as supreme leader. Elected over other more moderate candidates, Mojtaba is expected to adopt an even more defiant posture. Instead of a more friendly—or just more predictable—leadership in Iran, the United States and its regional partners may confront Iranian leaders determined to seize the initiative and press any perceived advantage in pursuit of regional hegemony.
Instead of a more friendly—or just more predictable—leadership in Iran, the United States and its regional partners may confront Iranian leaders determined to seize the initiative and press any perceived advantage in pursuit of regional hegemony.
U.S. and Israeli airstrikes also were successful in targeting Iranian naval and air assets, effectively destroying the regular Iranian navy and air force. But they were unsuccessful in eliminating Iran’s missile stockpiles (by some estimates only destroying one-third), and Iran still possesses highly enriched uranium. Further, almost all damage caused by the U.S. military can be repaired by Iran, including to its nuclear, ballistic missile, and drone programs. Any military progress achieved by the United States and Israel during the war is both marginal and transitory, far short of the decisive blow Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to deliver.
On the other hand, despite its air superiority, the United States still suffered significant equipment losses, including four F-15s (three due to friendly fire), an AN-TPY-2 radar system, at least one KC-135 refueling aircraft, an E-3 AWACS, two C-130 military transport planes, an A-10 Thunderbolt, two Black Hawk helicopters, and more than a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones, totaling more than $2.35 billion in losses alone. In terms of U.S. inventories, the most consequential implication will likely prove to be the depletion of U.S. munitions for systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot missile defense batteries, the scale of which is currently unknown. These not only represent financial losses, but also strategic losses that, in some cases, will take years to replace and leave the United States less equipped to deter a near-peer adversary such as China.
Now, the Trump administration will enter into negotiations over the next two weeks to reach a comprehensive agreement, in the absence of which this war could resume at any time, and Iran will retain the ability to harm the United States and its allies—an outcome Trump clearly does not want. Unfortunately, this means Iran holds the upper hand in negotiations. Trump is caught between Scylla and Charybdis: Any agreement is likely to favor Iranian terms, but resuming hostilities is unlikely to change this calculus. Thus, continuing the status quo may be the best option for Trump. However, the status quo means contending with an Iran that holds the keys to the strait, rebuilds its military arsenal, and retains—if not further enriches—its stockpiles of enriched uranium.
Conclusion
In short, simply by surviving the war and inflicting damage on U.S. partners, Iran has emerged stronger than it was before the war, while the United States achieved none of its objectives, suffered costly losses, and has weakened its strategic position vis-a-vis its adversaries. By any measure, the United States is less safe and less prosperous than it was six weeks ago. In launching this ill-advised war of choice with Iran, Trump has allowed Iran to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, moving from a contained regime under intense popular opposition to an ascendant regional actor.