Missiles Over the Gulf: What Each Side Considers ‘Victory’ As US-Israel-Iran War Enters Day Four
Four days into open conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, the war has already outgrown a simple bilateral confrontation. Tehran’s decision to strike Arab neighbours aligned with Washington has transformed the clash into a broader regional war. The United Kingdom, setting aside its earlier reluctance, now permits American forces to operate from its bases.
Events are moving at dizzying speed. Reports of fresh missile launches arrive by the hour. In one alarming development, US Central Command confirmed that American F-15E jets were downed in what appears to be a friendly fire incident involving Gulf air defences. The tempo on the ground suggests that by the time any analysis is complete, new strikes will have already reshaped the battlefield.
Predicting an outcome at this stage is impossible. Wars, once set in motion, rarely unfold according to plan. Yet each major player has a distinct idea of what winning would look like.
Donald Trump: Destruction and Internal Pressure
Speaking from his Florida residence rather than the Oval Office, President Donald Trump projected certainty. He framed Iran as a long-standing threat dating to the 1979 revolution and outlined sweeping objectives: dismantle Iran’s missile capabilities, neutralise its naval forces, and cripple the regional proxy networks aligned with Tehran.
Trump also suggested that sustained military pressure could create an opening for Iranians to overturn their own government a strategy that places the burden of regime change on Iranian citizens while stopping short of committing US ground forces. It leaves Washington room to claim success without direct occupation.
History, however, offers sobering precedents. Air campaigns alone have rarely toppled entrenched governments. The 2003 Iraq invasion required ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein. In Libya, NATO air power assisted rebels who eventually overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. Betting that bombing alone will fracture Tehran’s power structure is a high-risk calculation. An internal coup remains conceivable but improbable in the opening days of conflict. More likely, Iran’s leadership may endure by absorbing punishment and rallying support around nationalist and religious narratives.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Strategic Elimination
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran has long represented Israel’s most dangerous adversary. He argues Tehran’s ultimate ambition is nuclear capability aimed at threatening the Jewish state. His stated goal is decisive: permanently degrade Iran’s military infrastructure and eliminate its ability to rebuild proxy forces across the region.
Like Trump, Netanyahu has urged Iranians to challenge their rulers. But if internal revolt fails to materialise, Israel’s priority remains ensuring Iran cannot rearm in ways that endanger Israeli cities.
Domestic politics also loom large. Netanyahu faces elections and lingering criticism over security failures preceding the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. A conclusive blow against Iran could significantly reshape his political standing at home.
Tehran: Survival as Victory
While the death of Iran’s supreme leader would represent a profound shock, the Islamic Republic was engineered to withstand precisely such crises. Unlike regimes built around a single ruling family, Iran’s system distributes authority across religious, military, and political institutions designed to overlap and reinforce one another.
At the heart of that structure stands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), tasked with protecting the revolution both at home and abroad, commanding vast manpower and economic resources. Alongside it operates the Basij militia, known for suppressing internal dissent.
For Tehran, victory does not necessarily mean defeating the US or Israel outright it means enduring. If the system survives intact, even badly damaged, it can claim resilience as triumph. The ideological dimension is equally powerful. Concepts of martyrdom and resistance are deeply embedded in the regime’s narrative, and external attack may consolidate, rather than fracture, its core support base.
The Shadow of Iraq and Libya
The United States and its allies operate on the belief that overwhelming military force can alter the strategic balance without triggering prolonged chaos. Yet the examples of Iraq and Libya serve as persistent cautionary tales. Removing a government does not automatically produce stability.
Iran’s scale compounds the risk considerably. With a population exceeding 90 million and diverse ethnic communities, a power vacuum could unleash instability well beyond its borders. Civil conflict or fragmentation would reverberate across the Middle East, potentially eclipsing previous crises in scale and severity.
A Gamble With Regional Stakes
US and Israeli strikes are already reshaping the regional equation by degrading Iran’s military assets. Even if the regime holds, its capacity to project force may be significantly diminished. Many Iranians may genuinely desire political change. But replacing an entrenched system through external military force remains fraught with uncertainty. The assumption that this war will inevitably produce a safer Middle East is far from guaranteed.
Three days in, the conflict has already altered the region’s trajectory. Whether it ends in regime collapse, a negotiated settlement, or prolonged instability will depend on calculations being made in Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran and on how much punishment each side believes it can absorb.