After six months of war, what have US, Iran gained and lost?

The conflict that began on 28 February after the United States and Israel launched a series of missile strikes against Iranian targets has lasted six months, leaving the United States with far fewer gains than it promised and Iran largely intact. The initial attacks, which killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, other senior officials in Tehran and dozens of children in a school in Minab, were presented by the U.S. as a pre‑emptive act of self‑defence. President Donald Trump later declared that the war would last only “four to five weeks,” a prediction that proved wrong.

The U.S. objectives at the outset were broad and at times contradictory. They included crippling Iran’s nuclear programme, dismantling its missile and naval capabilities, and achieving a regime change. The country also sought to secure control of the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than one‑fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas transits, and to eliminate Iran’s support for allied militias in the region. In practice, none of these goals has been fully realised.

On the nuclear front, U.S. officials claimed that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated” after the 12‑day war in June 2025 and again in February 2025 when Tehran was said to be weeks away from developing a weapon. Subsequent strikes have damaged facilities, but Iran is believed to still possess 440 kg of highly enriched uranium that could be used to make a weapon. A June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two sides called for Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapon, but its vague wording led to disputes over what was actually agreed. While U.S. military veteran Clark Summers said the ends “have been achieved,” ANU professor Alam Saleh argued that Iran’s nuclear power programme remains intact and that the United States “lost even before the war.”

The promised regime change also failed to materialise. Although Khamenei was killed, Iran’s political leadership was largely unchanged; the late ayatollah’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has since taken the position of Supreme Leader. Summers described the U.S. goal as “ad hoc” and improvised, while Saleh warned that “killing leaders does not mean strategic achievements.”

The U.S. also aimed to destroy Iran’s missile arsenal and navy. Trump claimed that about 82 percent of Iran’s missiles were destroyed and that the navy had been degraded, citing 158 naval vessels hit in April. Yet Iran continues to launch missiles, most recently a long‑range missile that killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan in July. The U.S. has not seized any Iranian territory, including the Kharg island that was announced as a target in June.

Control of the Strait of Hormuz has become a focal point. Iran closed the narrow waterway shortly after the war began, reducing daily shipping from more than 100 vessels to an average of five. In response, the U.S. imposed its own blockade on Iranian ports. Despite Trump’s repeated demands that Tehran reopen the strait, Iran has not complied, instead negotiating a future shipping route that it will partially control with Oman. Shipping remains at an all‑time low, and Iranian forces continue to fire on vessels that attempt to pass without permission.

The war has caused an estimated 8 000 to 10 000 deaths and tens of thousands of injuries, and it has triggered a global oil supply crisis. Analysts say the conflict is realigning the international order, with new alliances forming and established ones weakening. China and Russia are watching the U.S. struggle, recalculating their own military postures, while the United States has moved its last aircraft carrier from the Western Pacific to the Middle East, leaving the region with fewer naval assets.

In the words of Saleh, “Both of them have not achieved anything.” He argues that while Iran’s survival is not a victory, it represents a defeat for the United States. As the war continues, the U.S. remains unable to translate its military superiority into tangible strategic gains, and Iran continues to maintain its influence and capabilities. The conflict’s future trajectory will hinge on whether either side can shift the balance of power in its favour.