The United States and Israel's bombing campaign has devastated Iran's military, decapitated much of its leadership, and destroyed critical infrastructure.
Yet Tehran still believes it is winning the weekslong confrontation. That Iran's theocracy has survived at all has been touted in the Islamic republic as a victory. The country has also obtained a new and powerful card: control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Since the war began on February 28, Iran has effectively closed one of the world's key arteries for global oil and gas supplies, a move that has rattled energy markets, upended the global economy, and handed Tehran new leverage.
Iran's perception of victory has shaped the country's conduct in the conflict, where it has refused to capitulate despite suffering enormous material losses. The Islamic republic's confidence has extended to the negotiating table, where it is aiming to end the war on its own terms.
"In some ways, Iran is in a more favorable position now than it was before the war. It finally played a card it had threatened for years -- closing off the Strait of Hormuz -- and it paid off," said Arash Azizi, a postdoctoral associate and lecturer at Yale University.
"Iran showed it could affect global trade and make the US sweat," he added. "It also showed that it could weather foreign attacks without risking regime or societal collapse so far. But Iran has also borne a massive economic cost and will need an end to the war and help for reconstruction."
SEE ALSO:
Trump Announces Israel-Lebanon Cease-Fire Amid Diplomatic Push For Further US-Iran Talks'New Security Order'
Iran's goal in the war is no longer just to survive, experts say, but to use its leverage to end its international isolation and the crippling sanctions that have cut it off from the global economy.
Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said in an April 7 post on X that Iran had "clearly and openly won the war" and would only accept an outcome that established "a new security order in the region."
Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's key policymaking body, said in an April 8 statement that the country's goal in peace talks with the United States is to create "new security and political equations" in the Middle East that recognize the country's "power and leadership."
"Iran sees this moment of crisis as an opportunity to reshape the regional order," said Azizi. "This could be either a way of integrating itself into the region, having other countries recognize it as a significant regional power and not a pariah. Or it could be that it simply shows its revisionism is here to stay and won't be cowed so easily."
SEE ALSO:
Merz: Germany Ready To Help Secure Strait Of HormuzUnderscoring Tehran's new tougher line, Iran published a 10-point peace plan ahead of talks with the United States in Pakistan on April 11 that ultimately failed to produce a deal.
Many of the points were maximalist demands that are likely to be nonstarters for Washington, including recognition of Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz, the United States withdrawing tens of thousands of its troops and closing over a dozen bases in the Middle East, and billions in reparations to Iran for war damages.
Before the Islamabad talks, Tehran threatened to back out of the negotiations at the last minute if the United States and others did not unfreeze billions in Iranian assets held in foreign banks. The demand was rejected.
"Iran thinks it has won the war, so it has entered negotiations with more confidence," said Sina Azodi, an expert of Iran's military and history and an assistant professor of Middle East politics at George Washington University.
He said Iran has displayed resilience on the battlefield, where it has repeatedly hit sensitive targets deep inside Israel, damaged heavily protected US bases and military hardware in the Middle East, and imposed severe economic pain on key US allies in the Persian Gulf.
"Iran feels that it can show more resilience at the negotiation table, as well," said Azodi.
Your browser doesn’t support HTML5
Veterans Of 1980s 'Tanker War' See Parallels In Current Hormuz Crisis
Risk Of Overplaying Its Hand
Tehran and Washington reached a last-minute, two-week temporary cease-fire on April 7 after President Donald Trump had threatened that "a whole civilization will die tonight," in reference to Iran.
But the shaky truce has threatened to collapse over a dispute over whether the cease-fire extended to Lebanon, Iran's failure to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and a US decision to blockade the strait with the aim of stopping Iran exporting its oil and gas.
Still, the sides are in indirect talks to extend the cease-fire and hold a second round of negotiations in Islamabad.
Experts say Iran and the United States have both showed little flexibility in negotiations so far.
Vice President JD Vance, who headed the US delegation in Islamabad, said after the failed talks that "they have chosen not to accept our terms," suggesting he handed the Iranians a take-it-or-leave-it deal that they rejected.
SEE ALSO:
Why Hezbollah Is 'Central' To Iran's Leverage In War And Peace TalksEven as experts say time is on Iran's side and Trump faces pressure to end the war given soaring global energy prices and mounting domestic and international backlash, Tehran is at risk of further hardening US positions and prolonging a costly war.
"Iran heavily risks overplaying its hand," said Azizi.
He said Iran's history since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 is dotted with examples where the authorities overreached and failed to turn military gains into diplomatic advantage.
The most prominent example is the devastating 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. In 1986, Iranian forces seized Iraq's Faw peninsula. Instead of trading its control of the strategic area for political gains, Iran refused and was ultimately forced to accept a cease-fire in 1988 on less favorable terms.