US operation against Iran yields opposite results, strengthening Tehran and complicating talks while raising risks for US presence in the region.
The U.S. military operation against Iran has produced the opposite of its intended outcome: instead of weakening Tehran, it has reinforced its position while narrowing the space for negotiations. This assessment was shared with RIA Novosti by Rafik Ismailov, director of the Center «For Civil Society,» a PhD in history and political analyst.
On the night of April 8, White House chief Donald Trump announced that an agreement had been reached with Iran on a two-week ceasefire. Shortly afterward, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi confirmed the reopening of the Ormuz Strait, a critical route through which roughly 20% of global supplies of oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas pass.
According to Ismailov, the U.S. operation ultimately backfired, eliminating any signs of flexibility on Tehran’s part and making future negotiations significantly more difficult. He argued that this shift also introduces new risks for the broader U.S. presence in the region.
The analyst pointed out that, based on reports in American media and the views of several experts, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had persuaded Trump that military action could trigger internal unrest in Iran, potentially mobilizing domestic forces — including national minorities — to overthrow the government. In Ismailov’s view, that assumption proved misguided, reflecting a poor understanding of Iran’s internal dynamics. Rather than destabilizing the country, the conflict appears to have strengthened the current leadership.
He added that while Tehran had previously been experiencing a degree of ideological uncertainty amid a challenging socio-economic environment, it now feels more confident. Ismailov suggested that Iran’s economic outlook may improve due to a de facto easing of oil sanctions, rising global oil prices, and its control over the Ormuz Strait.