A victory or a stalemate? The Statesman 14 Apr 2026
Article Read Time
A victory or a stalemate? The Statesman 14 Apr 2026
A day after he tweeted ‘whole civilization will die tonight’ and hours before his deadline, Trump announced a ceasefire. The ceasefire was supposedly negotiated by Pakistan with strong backing of China. Whether it was Pakistan’s efforts or it was named to prevent credit being given to China is immaterial, a ceasefire is what the world wanted. Markets rebounded and oil prices dropped.
The first round of talks in Islamabad ended without any agreement. The global economy had slid downhill with rising oil, fertilizer, helium, aluminium and gas prices as also their shortfalls. Trump’s ratings were sinking and the US was alone, abandoned by its allies. An agreement remains essential for Trump to regain his ratings.
Immediately after the ceasefire announcement, there were disagreements. Israel was unhappy it was not consulted. MOSSAD was already tasking its sources to locate whereabouts of the current Iranian leadership, which it hoped to target next. China had to assure security to the Iranian delegation in Islamabad. Iran and Pakistan had mentioned that the ceasefire includes Lebanon, which Israel disagreed. The US backed Israel. Netanyahu’s increased attacks on Lebanon led to Iran initially regening on its promise.
Trump’s sudden interest in re-opening of the Straits to reduce global oil prices and re-boost his internal ratings provided Iran with the leverage it needed. It initially refused to open the straits or participate in discussions until the ceasefire included Lebanon. Israel offered Lebanon talks but recommenced attacks on Hezbollah positions. For once, Iran did not blame Israel but the Lebanese PM who it claimed was obstructing the ceasefire by refusing to link it to talks with the US, thereby sidelining Iran and Hezbollah.
The announcement of the ceasefire led to all sides declaring victory. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei mentioned, ‘Today, and up to this point, it can boldly be said that you, the heroic nation of Iran, have been the definitive victor in this arena.’
Trump tweeted that the US had, ‘already met and exceeded all military objectives.’ Hegseth stated in a press conference, ‘Epic Fury decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat-ineffective for years to come.’ Chairman US Joint Chief’s of Staff General Dan Caine mentioned that approximately between 12-13,000 targets were struck, 90% of Iran’s navy and missile producing factories destroyed alongside 80% of its air defences. There was no mention of whether political objectives were achieved.
What is unknown is whether the US military questioned Trump’s plans to engage civilian targets, including those where civilians had formed human chains, aware it could be considered war crimes. The ceasefire stabilized markets and oil prices, providing some relief to Trump. The US did achieve military success but fell short of their political war aims.
Trump and Netanyahu had launched the war seeking regime change. The regime did change, but only within, and possibly even more hardline. Iran had never controlled Hormuz. It was an international waterway. No longer. The US burned billions in the war, including losing about 20 aircraft and an equal number of costly UAVs, severe damage to its assets in the region, while nuclear fissile material continues in Iran. How long will it take for the US to recreate their expended arsenal remains a question. The war cost Israel over 11 billion Dollars.
IRGC’s stockpiles of missiles and drones may have depleted but remain formidable. It possesses the ability to attack the Middle East and damage/destroy assets. The war worsened the already weakening relationship within NATO. European nations never considered this to be their war. They had opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza, declared Netanyahu as a war criminal, and hence were unwilling to back the US-Israel combine.
European nations blocked US aircraft from exploiting their airspace and airbases to attack Iran. Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO, with little effect. The Ukraine war took a backseat and Russia gained by increased sale of its oil and gas. Iran’s oil, which was moving by China’s shadow ships, became available.
Trump had treated his European allies with disdain, threatened to take over Greenland and he was paid back by zero cooperation when he most needed them. The Middle East would also possibly reconsider its alliance with the US. It is possible that a new security architecture may emerge, without the US.
Within the US, Trump’s ratings continued to drop. He was aware that this war would impact mid-term elections scheduled for later this year. Losing control of the Congress would make the remainder of his presidency difficult as also open him to impeachment. Epstein files, which had been brushed under the carpet during the conflict, re-emerged to haunt him. In other words, the days ahead are unpleasant.
Iran on the other hand stood its ground. Its 10-point agenda may not be agreed upon but its demands would be more than what it had demanded in Feb. It is aware that it holds the world to ransom by controlling the Hormuz Straits, which cannot be taken over militarily without major losses. Its charging for use of the straits to enable rebuilding its infrastructure cannot be easily denied.
If Trump seeks to regain his internal ratings and hope for victory in mid-term polls, he cannot risk re-engaging Iran in an armed conflict. His only option is economic squeezing of Iran, which he has commenced. Iran has displayed that a nation can hold its own against mighty powers. It needs to be willing to absorb losses and exploit its strengths, which are missiles, drones, global waterways and oil. It has forced both, arch-enemy Israel and the US to bend. If it accepts US’s demands of no nuclear weapons and opening facilities for IAEA inspections, it should be compensated well. It cannot accept limits on missiles as it does not trust Israel’s intent.
While the US counts victory based on its military objectives, Iran looks at it from its ability to force the US to the bargaining table and its power to control the global economy through Hormuz. It has demonstrated that air power can cause damage but never enforce a surrender. It has also proved that its strategy of wearing down the opposition is sound and plausible as long as the nation stands behind the leadership. It was a battle between air power on one side and missiles and drones on the other. Neither can declare victory. Ultimately, it was a stalemate.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army