Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that the United States had “gained nothing” from its military involvement during the recent 12-day war between Iran and Israel — a conflict marked by missile salvos, cyberattacks, and unprecedented airstrikes, including hits on Iranian nuclear sites. As the region breathes under a fragile ceasefire, Khamenei’s statement underlines a shifting narrative in the Middle East, where the lines between conventional state power, proxy warfare, and geopolitical alliances are increasingly blurred.
In a written address broadcast by Iran’s state media on Thursday, Khamenei said the Islamic Republic had emerged victorious against both Israel and its principal backer, the United States. His speech, his first public remarks since the ceasefire was announced on Tuesday, was combative and triumphalist, painting the war as a defining moment in the Islamic Republic’s resistance to Western and Israeli aggression.
“They attacked our nuclear facilities, which of course would merit criminal prosecution in international courts,” Khamenei stated. “But they did nothing significant. The Islamic Republic won, and in retaliation dealt a severe slap to the face of America.”
Iranian state media carried his remarks widely, reflecting Tehran’s desire to frame the narrative of the conflict not only as a military success but also as a political triumph over what it views as Western imperialism.
Khamenei also took direct aim at former U.S. President Donald Trump, referencing past claims about “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program. “He exaggerated events in unusual ways,” Khamenei said, implying that Trump’s rhetoric was more show than substance. “Anyone who has heard these words has understood that there is another truth behind them.”
While the physical damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains under assessment — reports suggest moderate damage to uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow — Iran has managed to maintain a strong propaganda front, claiming that its retaliatory strikes on Israeli military infrastructure and cyber networks were successful and measured.
The 12-day war, the most direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran to date, began after a suspected Israeli cyberattack temporarily crippled power systems in southern Tehran. Iran responded with coordinated missile strikes on Israeli airbases and naval assets. In retaliation, Israel, with reported U.S. logistical support, launched a series of air raids targeting Iranian ballistic missile sites and nuclear research centers.
For decades, Israel and Iran have been engaged in a “shadow war,” with incidents ranging from cyber sabotage to covert operations across Syria, Lebanon, and the Persian Gulf. But this latest escalation marked a transition into open warfare, dragging the United States into a role far more visible than Washington had anticipated.
According to U.S. defense officials, Washington provided intelligence, aerial surveillance, and logistical support to Israel, but did not directly launch strikes on Iranian territory. However, Tehran insists otherwise, accusing the U.S. of “direct military aggression” that violates international law.
The Biden administration — already struggling with deteriorating relations with China and an unresolved war in Ukraine — is facing criticism at home and abroad for what analysts see as an incoherent Middle East strategy.
Senior officials at the Pentagon maintain that American involvement was defensive in nature, designed to prevent the conflict from escalating into a full regional war. But voices in the international community, including at the United Nations, are calling for investigations into whether U.S. assistance contributed to violations of international norms regarding the sovereignty of Iranian infrastructure.
“What we’re seeing is a blowback from the overdependence on military solutions,” said Noura Erakat, a legal scholar specializing in Middle Eastern law. “The U.S. has gained little from this engagement, yet it risks being seen as complicit in unlawful attacks.”
Even as the Middle East reels from this latest bout of violence, attention has turned eastward to the Chinese port city of Qingdao, where China hosted a rare in-person gathering of defense ministers from Iran, Russia, and other Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) members.
The Qingdao meeting came just one day after NATO concluded a summit in The Hague, where alliance members — under pressure from President Trump’s renewed rhetoric about “fair burden sharing” — pledged to increase military spending and enhance defense coordination.
China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun framed the Qingdao summit as a necessary counterbalance to what he described as a “world marked by intertwined turmoil and changes.” He urged the SCO — which includes major players like India, Pakistan, and Central Asian states — to act as an “anchor of stability.”
Russia’s new defense minister, Andrei Belousov, echoed that sentiment, warning of “worsening geopolitical tensions” and pointing fingers at NATO expansion, U.S. sanctions, and destabilization efforts in the Middle East.
While the symbolism of hosting Iranian and Russian officials is undeniable, analysts caution that China remains wary of being pulled into direct involvement in the Middle East’s increasingly combustible politics.
“Beijing’s support for Iran will be rhetorical rather than material,” said James Char of Nanyang Technological University. “They don’t want to further destabilize relations with the U.S., especially as trade tensions remain unresolved and Taiwan continues to be a flashpoint.”
Andrea Ghiselli, a foreign policy expert at the University of Exeter, agrees. “Iran’s defence minister may raise the issue of weapons supply from China,” he said. “But Beijing is unlikely to oblige. Providing arms would be interpreted as a hostile act, not just by Israel but by the United States, with whom China is still trying to manage a fragile diplomatic thaw.”
India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, also present at the Qingdao gathering, highlighted the internal contradictions of the SCO — an alliance that includes both nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, as well as India’s strategic rival, China.
Singh emphasized multilateral cooperation but warned of the erosion of globalization and rising geopolitical uncertainties.
“The world we live in is undergoing a drastic transformation,” Singh said. “We must collectively aspire to fulfill the aspirations and expectations of our people as well as tackle today’s challenges.”
India’s balancing act — maintaining strategic partnerships with both the U.S. and Russia while navigating volatile SCO dynamics — reflects the broader realignment underway in the Indo-Pacific.
For now, the war between Iran and Israel has paused. The ceasefire, brokered reportedly with the assistance of Qatar and Oman, remains tenuous. Border clashes in Lebanon continue, with Hezbollah — an Iranian-backed group — remaining active along Israel’s northern frontier. Israeli political leaders, though shaken by the scale of the conflict, have framed the confrontation as a necessary show of strength.
However, within Israel, public sentiment is divided. Protests in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem have called for accountability from the Netanyahu government, which critics say misjudged Iran’s retaliatory capability and failed to prevent significant cyber and drone attacks on Israeli territory.
In Tehran, meanwhile, Khamenei’s narrative of “victory” is being carefully choreographed through state-controlled media, even as ordinary Iranians express concern about the long-term costs of continued conflict. Inflation remains high, foreign investment is negligible, and the nuclear program — a symbol of national pride and contention — is once again under international scrutiny.
The broader question looming over the aftermath of this conflict is whether it sets a precedent for direct wars between regional powers — aided overtly or covertly by global superpowers — or if it serves as a wake-up call for de-escalation.
With China, Russia, and Iran finding common ground in their opposition to Western influence, and the U.S. doubling down on support for allies like Israel, the potential for further polarization remains high.
“The current multipolar world order is being tested,” said Sanam Vakil, Deputy Director of the Middle East North Africa Programme at Chatham House. “And unless there’s serious diplomatic engagement, this ceasefire may prove to be just an intermission, not the end.”
