E-Paper
The 40-day war that changed nothing: How Iran, the US and the Gulf all lost
Trump announced a two‑week ceasefire, mediated by Pakistan and reportedly nudged along by China, after earlier threatening to “destroy Iranian civilization.”
In a hard-hitting conversation on Hindustan Times’ Point Blank, Executive Editor Shishir Gupta and Senior Anchor Aayesha Varma dissected the so‑called “ceasefire” in the Middle East that has followed 40 days of intense conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran, with the Gulf region as unexpected collateral damage. What emerged was a stark assessment: despite trillions spent, hundreds of lives lost and the Gulf pummeled, the core political and military objectives of the war remain largely unmet.
A Ceasefire That Masks a Stalemate
US President Donald Trump has announced a two‑week ceasefire, mediated by Pakistan and reportedly nudged along by China, after earlier threatening to “destroy Iranian civilization.” On paper, this sounds like a dramatic diplomatic breakthrough. In reality, Gupta describes the situation as “basically a stalemate,” stressing that neither side has achieved what it set out to do.
Washington’s original objectives were clear and maximalist: regime change in Tehran and the enforced handover of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Today, those demands have effectively disappeared from the table. Instead, the conversation has shifted to more tactical issues like freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and an Iranian demand to be allowed to continue uranium enrichment under its own terms.
Despite 40 days of relentless bombardment by US and Israeli forces, Iran has neither collapsed nor capitulated. Gupta notes that even after Trump’s ceasefire announcement, Iran continued to fire missiles, underlining that its military capability and political will remain intact.
Iran Still Standing, Gulf Left in Ruins
If Washington and Tel Aviv have not clearly won, has Iran? Gupta’s answer is nuanced. Militarily and economically, Iran has been “pulverized” and reduced to rubble in many areas, yet its hardline Shia Islamist regime remains firmly in place. That survival, after facing the combined military might of the US and Israel, allows Tehran to claim a form of victory, at least in narrative terms.
But the clearest losers in this war, Gupta argues, are the Gulf countries.
States like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Bahrain have been devastated by Iranian missile and drone strikes while having limited capacity or political space to retaliate. UAE alone, he points out, was targeted by around 520 ballistic missiles and nearly 2,000 kamikaze drones, triggering panic, capital flight and a sharp hit to its economic engine in Dubai and Sharjah.
The global impact has been just as brutal. Markets crashed, oil prices spiked and the global economy took a “huge bashing” over these 40 days as both sides tried to prove a point. The war has thus produced no decisive victor, only an expanding circle of losers.
Pakistan: From Messenger to “Muslim NATO” Aspirant
A key thread in the discussion is Pakistan’s role as broker, messenger and opportunist.
Historically used by Washington and London as a convenient intermediary—most notably during the Taliban talks in Doha—Pakistan has played a similar role in this crisis, passing messages between Iran, the US and, crucially, China. Gupta outlines a three‑step trajectory: Pakistan first carries messages, then mediates, and finally positions itself as a negotiator.
Islamabad’s motives are both external and internal:
- It desperately needs regional stability for its own energy security, as fuel prices and rationing have hit its fragile economy hard.
- It sits in a web of contradictions—defence partner of Sunni Saudi Arabia, major non‑NATO ally of the US since 2004, yet home to the world’s second‑largest Shia population after Iran.
This sectarian and strategic tightrope has already produced tensions, including Pakistan’s army chief telling Shia clerics that if they were so committed to Iran, they could go live there.
Gupta also underscores Pakistan’s growing dependence on and coordination with China, noting that Islamabad has reported back to Beijing on its role in the deal, while China likely continued to receive Gulf oil via tankers under Pakistani flags.
The result, he warns, is that Pakistan could now attempt to project itself as a kind of “Muslim NATO leader” in the region—an outcome he calls deeply unconducive for both the Middle East and the Gulf.
China’s Quiet Gain and the Western Narrative Gap
Amid the wreckage, one external power appears to have navigated the crisis with strategic composure: China.
By ensuring continued oil supplies from the Persian Gulf—very likely via Pakistani‑flagged ships—Beijing managed to shield its energy security while letting others absorb the immediate costs of war. In Gupta’s view, China emerges “in a better position,” having avoided both the political exposure of direct involvement and the economic shock felt by energy‑dependent economies elsewhere.
The conversation also raises questions about how little the world really knows about what unfolded during the war. Gupta points to orchestrated tweets, scripted narratives and stage‑managed rescue stories that resemble a “Rambo game,” reminding viewers that both Western and Iranian narratives are heavily curated. There is, he stresses, no truly independent account of critical episodes, including how specific pilots were rescued or how certain decisions were actually taken.
The Ceasefire’s Upside: Energy Relief for India
From India’s perspective, Gupta sees only one clear upside to the ceasefire: economic relief driven by calming energy markets.
Brent crude has already dropped from 109 dollars a barrel to around 94, easing pressure on India’s energy import bill and improving global energy security. With LNG and LPG supplies resuming and Middle East shipping lanes reopening, there is potential for broader market recovery after a 40‑day battering.
However, this economic respite comes with a strategic price tag. If the US accepts Iran’s proposal to effectively dominate the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz—collecting tolls alongside Oman—it will be seen as conceding a critical maritime chokepoint to Tehran. That raises existential questions for Saudi Arabia, UAE and other Gulf monarchies that have traditionally relied on the US as their security guarantor.
A Fragile Peace, a Shattered Security Architecture
Looking ahead, Gupta is deeply sceptical that the ceasefire represents anything more than a temporary pause.
He points out that:
- Iran’s 10‑point proposal does not include any cap on its ballistic missile programme.
- There is no commitment not to build nuclear weapons.
- There is no pledge to hand over enriched uranium to the IAEA, as originally demanded.
At the same time, Iran claims victory, the US claims its objectives have been met, and both sides are content to sell this fragile truce to their domestic audiences. Yet, in substance, “nothing has changed,” Gupta says: Iran will continue missile development and nuclear enrichment; the US will continue to meddle in the Middle East; and the Gulf will remain in Iran’s crosshairs unless it fundamentally rethinks its security posture.
For the Gulf, the lesson is brutal but clear. They were collateral damage—economically, militarily and politically—for hosting US bases without having adequate retaliatory capacity of their own. Going forward, Gupta argues, Gulf states will be forced to:
- Look beyond the US for security partnerships, including towards India and China.
- Explore a common regional defence front.
- Invest heavily in offensive and deterrent capabilities so they are never again caught in the crossfire without options.
Meanwhile, Iran’s regime survives, dissenters at home will likely be crushed, the US moves on to its next geopolitical theatre, and Pakistan collects “a few pieces of silver” for services rendered.
In that sense, this 40‑day war may be remembered less for what it changed than for what it exposed: a hollow security architecture in the Gulf, a malleable Western narrative, an emboldened Iran—and a global system where, after catastrophic costs, the world finds itself right back at square one.
