Wars often begin with the false assumption that the strongest will inevitably win. The military capabilities, economic capacity, and political legitimacy of the stronger party are generally known and accepted. When a country's military capacity is examined, for example, with data like "having a defense budget larger than the combined total of several countries," it's assumed that military leadership is clear. It's believed that numerical data is sufficient to declare the winner and loser even before the war begins. However, things don't always unfold that way. Wars are often won not by those with greater military power, but by those with greater resilience.

Peace and security research expert Andrew Mack argues that in asymmetric warfare, the outcome is determined not by military capacity, but by the meaning and commitment to the cause that the parties attach to the war. In his article, "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars," Mack states that war is a tool for the stronger party, but an existential matter for the weaker party. According to him, the stronger party enters the war with limited interests and tends to withdraw as costs increase. The weaker side, driven by an existential motivation, is not concerned with costs; it must resist. Mack calls this "asymmetry of interests."

The most significant weakness of powerful states in continuing a war is the public's sensitivity to losses. When the purpose and goal of the war are not fully internalized by society, the arrows of criticism turn towards the decision-makers. Losses are not just the number of coffins, of course; economic losses, loss of image and reputation, losses in terms of foreign policy interests, etc., all affect public opinion as a whole. Knowing this, the weaker side plays for time and waits for the opposing side to make a cost-benefit analysis in public opinion. The strength of the weaker side lies in the fact that its expectation is simply survival and that it has no choice but to resist to the end. Time is its greatest ally. Indeed, today, the biggest dilemma for Trump in continuing the war with Iran is the increasingly weakening link between the material and moral costs of the war and the desired outcome. The American voter's question has been the same since Vietnam: "For whom and for what are we fighting with my tax money?"

Trump's repeated shifts in the cause of the war naturally make the point he defines as victory volatile. No one truly understands what is being targeted. The initial channel through which accumulated hostility between the US and Iran flows is the "nuclear threat" narrative. Trump's core claim (a narrative borrowed from Netanyahu) is based on the assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. His withdrawal from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) during his first term stemmed from his finding the agreement structurally inadequate and his complaints about the lack of oversight. Trump's stance was also a reaction to the previous US administration, which had invested heavily in this agreement – ​​the legacy of Obama's foreign policy. Trump thought he could pressure the Iranian regime with sanctions, but he was faced with an even more unpredictable Iran.

The point reached with the war during Trump's second term seems to have given Iran a broader framework of legitimacy regarding its right to build nuclear weapons. The rising voices in world public opinion suggest that Iran will not become a more dangerous nuclear power than the US and Israel. The statement, sometimes voiced by the Israeli government, that nuclear weapons could be used if necessary, reinforces the idea that a nuclear threat in the region can only be neutralized if a balance of terror is established. Unfortunately, instead of becoming nuclear-armed, the region is transforming into a geography of countries with an increased tendency to possess nuclear weapons.

While Trump's second goal was to demonstrate to both friends and foes that the US was making itself great again by deploying its extraordinary military power, the situation is not unfolding as planned. Despite losing their proudly produced F-35s, and despite the destruction of their entire navy, air force, and leadership, Iran's resistance shows no sign of diminishing for now. On the contrary, the regime is exploiting the strength of the weak, prolonging the war, and transforming it into a global war affecting the entire world, centered on a single point. By targeting all US allies in the Gulf, it is spreading the feeling that they cannot be protected by the US, and by demonstrating that the US does not consider any country other than Israel as a true ally, but only uses them, it is spreading great distrust. He is probably watching with a smile as the oil sales sanctions imposed on both Russia and himself are lifted through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Controlling Iran, energy flows, and shifts in global alliances is no longer easy. By closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has managed to disrupt the heart of the global system. The scale of the crisis will escalate depending on how long the war lasts. While there is now talk of a ground operation targeting Harq Island in the US, there is no guarantee that Iran will not become a suicide bomber in such a situation. They might prefer to completely destroy the island rather than surrender it. This could lead to an irreversible systemic change resulting from a global energy shock. If the ground operation takes the form of a strike on the Iranian mainland, we could witness a historic case study in terms of the scale of resistance of a country of 1.6 million square kilometers and 90 million people. Political scientist Ivan Arreguin says that "the weaker actor will win if they don't play the stronger one's game." This war shows us all how easily things can turn in favor of the weaker side when you can't control the playing field, the referee, the rules, or the spectators. If the Trump administration can't pull a new rabbit out of the hat, a major collapse seems inevitable along with the midterm elections. So, who do you think wins the war?