News analysis
The U.S.-Iran war is increasingly being defined by its economic and geopolitical consequences as much as by its military outcome. While Washington and Tehran continue to claim victory in the still-simmering conflict, the weeks of fighting have disrupted economies, energy markets, and diplomacy far beyond the battlefield.
The Gulf alone suffered losses of $584 million (€515 million) a day during the first week of the war because of airspace closures and disruptions to tourism and business, according to Euro News.
As the conflict moves into negotiations, its long-term impact is likely to be measured not only by battlefield gains and losses, but also by each side’s ability to withstand pressure, shape the postwar settlement and influence the region’s evolving security order.
Operation Epic Fury cost the U.S. an estimated $1 billion every day, according to Deutsche Welle. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that the war had cost the U.S. $11.3 billion by day six and $16.5 billion by day twelve. The cumulative cost of the operation through mid-June reached $113.3 billion, according to the Iran War Cost Tracker.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
“President Donald Trump believed that the war would be a short affair and that the mullahs would quickly surrender after the leadership was decapitated. It did not and they did not,” Dr. Joseph A. Kéchichian, a senior fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, told Vision Times.
Regional conflict, global costs
Iran retaliated against the U.S.’ Operation Epic Fury and Israel’s Operation Roaring Lion by launching more than 7,000 missiles and drones at Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations hosting U.S. military and diplomatic assets — particularly strategic energy facilities, maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and urban centers. The U.S. counted 13 soldiers dead during the war, while 20 to 25 civilians were killed in Iran’s retaliatory strikes in the Gulf region.
Analyst Dr. John Calabrese wrote in an analysis for Manara Magazine, the publication arm of the Cambridge Middle East and North Africa Forum (MENAF), that GCC states had spent years trying to prevent the “regionalisation of conflict,” only for it to “occur at scale” because of Operation Epic Fury.
“Regrettably, Arab Gulf monarchies were caught in the regional vortex though Iran lost any empathy that the peoples of the Arabian Peninsula may have had towards their fellow Muslim neighbors,” Kéchichian said.
RECENT COVERAGE
- Pentagon Seeks Additional $80 Billion From Congress Following Iran War: Reports
- Media Battle Erupts Over Alleged Israeli Espionage Threat to US Amid Iran Talks
- Iran Conflict Accelerates Asia’s Shift to Electric Vehicles, Data Suggests
The losses were not confined to the GCC. They extended as far as the Indo-Pacific and the Americas, where consumer energy prices rose by 8 percent in Japan. In Brazil, diesel and gasoline prices climbed by more than 20 percent, jet fuel prices doubled and inflation surged to 0.88 percent in March alone.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group said in a joint statement on April 14 that the impact of the war had been “highly asymmetric, disproportionately affecting energy importers, in particular low-income countries.” The effects were also felt in Pakistan, a mediator in the peace negotiations, where inflation climbed steadily from 7.3 percent in March to 10.9 percent in April before reaching 11.7 percent in May, according to Bloomberg.
According to the joint statement, the shock triggered by the war also drove up global fertilizer prices, raising concerns about food security and increasing unemployment worldwide. The cumulative costs of the U.S.-Iran war have been borne by the entire world, most of which played no role in launching Operation Epic Fury.
“As for the rest of the world, a new chapter has now opened, one that weakened the United States in the eyes of friends and foes alike and, lest we forget, highlighted that conflicts between major powers and smaller developing countries were no longer ‘slam dunks,'” Kéchichian said.
Who stood its ground?
Both the US and Iran have claimed victory in the war, which itself may not be conclusively over, as both sides have conducted additional strikes following the fragile June 17 peace agreement.
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that Epic Fury achieved its military objectives by destroying Iran’s military infrastructure.
“This is a victory for the United States of America that the President and our incredible military made happen,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had said on April 8 in a White House statement announcing that Iran had agreed to a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz while the Trump administration pursued a broader peace agreement.
The White House has repeatedly framed its narrative of victory around the concept of “Peace Through Strength.” Meanwhile, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine said in an April 8 statement that Epic Fury was successful because it achieved three “distinct” military objectives:
“Destroy Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities, destroy the Iranian navy, and destroy their defense industrial base to ensure that Iran cannot reconstitute the ability to project power outside their borders.”
The April ceasefire was also fraught with sporadic continued fighting until the June 17 agreement.
Iran spins narrative of underdog victory
Iran’s narrative of victory has relied on even more superlatives, with the authorities pointing to the fact that Iran, rather than surrendering, prolonged the conflict until it reached a ceasefire and entered peace negotiations. The first round of talks produced no breakthrough, and negotiations have now entered a second round with a 60-day extension for a final agreement.
Claims of victory have continued to mirror the rhetoric of enmity throughout the June peace negotiations in Switzerland. Disputes over Israeli operations in Lebanon persist, disagreements remain over sanctions relief and verification of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and tensions were heightened by a temporary walkout by the Iranian delegation following threats issued by Trump. Signs of disagreement were also visible during a joint photo session and in the Iranian delegation’s refusal to shake hands at the start of the talks.
After the U.S. and Iran declared an end to hostilities earlier this month, Iranian officials proclaimed their “great victories” on June 15 on both political and diplomatic fronts and did not characterize the outcome as a compromise, according to Arab News.
“The enemy that had attacked to carry out its evil aims was defeated in all its aims and the Islamic Republic of Iran won great victories in the war,” Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said in comments broadcast on state television.
The Iranian deputy foreign minister stated that a “permanent and immediate end to the war” had been declared on all fronts, including Lebanon, and that military operations would cease beginning that same day.
Despite the 60-day window to reach a final agreement, Gharibabadi maintained that Iran retained the right to pursue its own course of action in the event of “breaches from the other side.”
Iranian state television, IRIB, described the ceasefire as the result of military pressure exerted by Tehran, declaring that Iranian forces had imposed their “divine and iron will” on what it called the “American and Zionist enemies.”
The battle beyond the battlefield
This contest of narratives over victory has largely emerged because, despite the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28, the theocracy remains intact and the state’s administrative machinery continues to function, albeit under strain. Kéchichian described this as a US miscalculation.
“The War for Iran was a strategic blunder by the Trump Administration as it failed to topple the Mullahs. On the contrary, it may be argued that Tehran managed to ‘obliterate’ its internal foes by strengthening its nationalistic arguments to defend the country and, of course, by remaining in power,” he said.
Amid the broader global economic distress caused by the Iran war, the obvious question is whether rebuilding is solely Iran’s concern or whether the conflict has irreversibly altered the world. How should the international community understand reconstruction in the aftermath of Epic Fury?
Because of Iran’s retaliatory attacks, this question resonates especially strongly in the GCC region. Calabrese described it as the exposure of a serious vulnerability embedded in the Gulf’s economic model.
“The Gulf’s economic transformation – its positioning as a stable hub for capital, logistics, and global talent – has been predicated on predictability. That assumption has been materially weakened,” wrote Calabrese.
“Disruptions to energy infrastructure and export routes are not simply price shocks; they represent a repricing of geopolitical risk embedded in the Gulf’s economic model.”
Rebuilding and geopolitical realignments
According to Calabrese, this weakening of the model channels straight into the nuclear domain and further is showing up during negotiations as well.
“The diminished credibility of U.S. commitments – both security guarantees and diplomatic assurances – complicates the ability to negotiate constraints on adversaries’ strategic programmes,” he said.
Thus, during the peace negotiations in Switzerland, when the US announced the lifting of oil sanctions against Iran, gains emerged not only for Iran but also for the broader Gulf region and the wider global economy.
Kéchichian credits Trump with recognizing this “crux of the matter.”
“The American president finally admitted that the global economic engine was negatively affected by his poorly deliberated war, which devastated so many economies, including that of the United States and most of its partners. Lifting oil sanctions will thus help Iran but, equally important, it will help everyone else,” he said.
European countries, including the UK, France, Italy, and Germany, have described the negotiations as a “moment of opportunity to restore regional stability and stabilize the global economy.” India has welcomed the agreement, while China has yet to release a formal statement. However, according to a Reuters report, Chinese state refineries are considering resuming imports of Iranian oil.
Kéchichian said that reduced tensions in the Strait of Hormuz would further lower oil and gas prices, although the process could take several weeks or even months.
Amid these developments, as peace negotiations establish the framework for reconstruction and the redesign of regional and global geopolitics, Kéchichian argued that despite suffering severe wartime losses, Iran has secured significant geopolitical gains, particularly through the evolving strategic landscape of the Strait of Hormuz.
“Under the circumstances, the primary geopolitical consequence is the added value to Iran (as a strategically well-placed country) and the Sultanate of Oman (through which most of the traffic in and out of the Gulf moved in the past and might once again after mines are cleared), which underscored their intrinsic roles in ensuring regional security,” said Kéchichian.
As far as the rebuilding of war-torn Iran is concerned, the Trump administration is also indirectly offering opportunities to parties beyond the immediate conflict through its proposed “reconstruction and development fund” for Iran.
The reported $300 billion “Reconstruction and Development Fund” proposed by the US would not involve direct payments from the U.S. government to Iran. Reuters reported that the fund is envisioned as a private-sector investment vehicle backed by companies from the United States, Gulf Arab states, Asia, and other regions. According to U.S. officials, the fund would contain no American taxpayer money.
