As the conflict enters its third week—approaching the twentieth day—an urgent and uncomfortable question is beginning to surface across policy circles, media debates, and public discourse: Who is the real beneficiary of this war? Beyond the fog of propaganda, beyond the daily casualty figures and battlefield claims, a clearer geopolitical picture is emerging—one that challenges conventional narratives and exposes a deeply asymmetric outcome.
At first glance, the war appears to be a brutal contest between the United States and Iran, with Israel positioned as a frontline ally. Yet, when the layers are peeled back, a different reality unfolds. Israel, despite limited direct losses, appears to be achieving long-standing strategic objectives. The United States, on the other hand, is bearing the overwhelming burden—militarily, economically, and diplomatically—while Iran, though heavily damaged, occupies a complex middle ground as both victim and resilient actor.
Iran has undoubtedly suffered immense losses. Its military infrastructure has been degraded, key leadership figures targeted, and economic systems disrupted. Strategic assets—ranging from oil facilities to logistical networks—have been hit repeatedly. Civilian hardship is mounting, and the country’s economic backbone is under unprecedented strain. In terms of physical destruction, human casualties, and systemic disruption, Iran stands as one of the primary victims of the conflict.
Yet, paradoxically, Iran has also demonstrated a degree of endurance that complicates the narrative of defeat. Its ability to disrupt shipping lanes, influence regional proxies, and impose costs on its adversaries has elevated its image as a power capable of asymmetric resistance. While materially weakened, Iran has not collapsed—nor has it surrendered strategic leverage.
In contrast, the United States finds itself in an increasingly precarious position. The financial cost alone is staggering, with estimates suggesting expenditures approaching $1 billion per day when accounting for military deployments, logistics, and operational support. Thousands of American personnel have been deployed across vast distances, stretching supply lines and complicating sustainment efforts. Casualties—both fatalities and injuries—are mounting, further intensifying domestic scrutiny.
More critically, the United States is experiencing a profound erosion of its global image. Long regarded as a stabilizing force and architect of a rules-based international order, Washington now faces accusations of unilateralism and overreach. The perception that it is enforcing its will through military dominance rather than diplomacy is damaging its credibility, particularly among allies and neutral states.
This reputational decline is most visible in the Middle East itself. U.S. bases across the region have come under sustained pressure, with several reportedly damaged or rendered less operational. Gulf states—once reliable partners—are increasingly questioning the value of hosting American military infrastructure. Rather than ensuring security, these bases have become potential targets, exposing host nations to heightened risks.
The economic repercussions are equally severe. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz—through which approximately 20% of global oil supply flows—has triggered a sharp spike in energy prices, with increases of up to 40% in some markets. Oil prices exceeding $100 per barrel have strained global economies, particularly those heavily dependent on imports. Supply chains have been disrupted, inflationary pressures intensified, and growth trajectories derailed.
For many countries, the consequences are existential. Energy shortages are forcing governments to ration fuel, shut down industries, and curtail public services. Universities are closing, businesses are scaling back operations, and entire sectors are slowing to a crawl. The global economy—already fragile—is now facing a contraction driven by the very lifeblood of modern industry: energy.
The Gulf states themselves are among the hardest hit. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain are grappling with a multifaceted crisis. Oil production facilities and refineries have been damaged or shut down. Airports and critical infrastructure have come under attack. Expatriate populations—the backbone of their economies—are fleeing in large numbers, creating labor shortages and economic instability.
Air traffic, once heavily routed through hubs like Dubai and Doha, is being diverted elsewhere, further eroding revenue streams. Tourism has collapsed, trade has slowed, and investor confidence has weakened. These economies, built on connectivity and stability, are now facing unprecedented disruption.
And yet, amid this widespread devastation, Israel appears remarkably insulated. Its casualty figures remain comparatively low, and its infrastructure has sustained minimal damage relative to the scale of destruction elsewhere. More importantly, Israel is advancing its strategic objectives with striking effectiveness.
For years, Israel has sought to weaken regional adversaries, particularly Iran and its network of allies. This conflict has provided the conditions to do precisely that. Iranian capabilities are being systematically degraded. Regional actors are destabilized. The geopolitical focus has shifted away from Israel’s own actions, allowing it greater operational freedom.
In Gaza, military operations continue with reduced international scrutiny. In the West Bank, territorial encroachments are accelerating. In southern Lebanon, intensified strikes are being justified under the pretext of countering militant threats. With global attention diverted to the broader war, Israel is pursuing multiple objectives simultaneously—military, territorial, and political.
Perhaps most significantly, Israel has succeeded in shifting the burden of the conflict onto the United States. Washington is now the face of the war, absorbing the financial costs, diplomatic backlash, and strategic risks. Israel, while deeply involved, operates with a degree of insulation that allows it to reap benefits without bearing proportional costs.
When the hierarchy of impact is assessed, a stark picture emerges. Iran, in terms of physical destruction and economic damage, ranks among the most affected. The United States follows closely, bearing immense financial costs and suffering a decline in global standing. The Gulf states, once pillars of regional stability, are experiencing severe economic and security disruptions. The broader international community is grappling with energy shortages and economic contraction.
At the very bottom of this hierarchy—least affected, yet most strategically advantaged—stands Israel.
This reality demands a fundamental reassessment of strategy, particularly in Washington. The United States must confront a difficult truth: it is investing enormous resources in a conflict that is yielding limited direct benefits while enabling another actor to achieve its long-term objectives.
History offers sobering lessons. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, prolonged engagements driven by strategic overconfidence have resulted in costly outcomes and lasting reputational damage. The current trajectory risks repeating those patterns, with potentially even greater global consequences.
The path forward requires clarity, courage, and a willingness to recalibrate. Continuing down the current course in the name of credibility or face-saving would only deepen the quagmire. Instead, a strategic pivot—grounded in national interest rather than inertia—is essential.
De-escalation, diplomatic engagement, and a redefinition of objectives must replace open-ended military commitment. The United States must ask not only how to win the war, but whether the war, as currently structured, is worth winning at all.
As the twentieth day approaches, the answer to the central question becomes increasingly clear. This is not a balanced conflict with shared gains and losses. It is a war in which one actor is quietly consolidating advantage while others bear the visible costs.
Recognizing that reality is the first step toward changing it.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France,Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC.He is living in Macomb, Michigan
