For Iran’s leaders, surviving the war may prove easier than winning the peace

After nearly half a century of flirting with direct conflict, the United States finally went to war with Iran. Fifteen weeks later, the fighting is over. The regime has not only survived a confrontation with the world’s most powerful military but emerged believing it is stronger than before.

Despite US President Donald Trump’s declaration just days into the war that Washington had already emerged victorious, Iran retained its ability to fight back right up to the signing of an interim ceasefire agreement with the US. Its most powerful weapon proved to be causing the biggest oil supply shock in history through its effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s crude passes.

Iran is casting its survival as a strategic victory over the US and Israel. But surviving the war may prove easier than winning the peace. Assuming the ceasefire holds, the more consequential battle is whether the Islamic Republic’s leaders can translate that defiance into sanctions relief, economic revival and enough public support to secure the regime’s future.

Projecting its own victory, the Iranian regime empowered a hardline leadership, fired missiles and drones at its neighbors, rejected temporary ceasefires, and doubled down on its right to a nuclear program.

It also appointed Mojtaba Khamenei , the son of assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to succeed his father in a deliberate display of continuity that defies the Islamic Republic’s long-standing taboo against hereditary rule. It maintains a functioning government and a cohesive military still capable of launching ballistic missiles that threaten Washington’s regional allies and the world economy.

A memorandum of understanding reached between the US and Iran over the weekend “immediately and permanently” terminates hostilities , paves the way for the removal of all sanctions against Iran, and unfreezes its assets, without having Iran end its missile program or its support for regional proxies. In return, Tehran has reiterated its longstanding pledge not to build a nuclear weapon, promised to dilute near weapons-grade uranium, and agreed to unblock the Strait of Hormuz – concessions that don’t go significantly beyond its prewar offers.

“For the Islamic Republic and its supporters, there is this strong sense of confidence that they took the biggest blows America and Israel can give them and were left standing and are getting concessions,” said Sina Toossi, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy (CIP).

Experts say the regime’s sense of triumph could quickly dissipate, however, if it fails to convert its wartime success into gains at home, which could require curbing hardliners’ appetite for continued conflict.

Iran’s generals and warmongering politicians had long boasted of their power to hit back. This conflict has left them emboldened. They see its outcome as proof that it was their military strategy – not diplomacy or compromise – that forced an agreement.

The hardliners have emerged with their hands on the levers of power and battlefield command, and their supporters now flood Iran’s streets with daily rallies celebrating a newfound legitimacy forged through surviving the US-Israeli assault. The moderate president, Masoud Pezeshkian, remains constrained to administrative governance and his reformist comrades have been pushed to the side – some even reportedly under house arrest.

But the Islamic Republic’s underlying problems remain unresolved, experts say. Unless it can convert its purported victory into tangible economic gain for the general population, the regime may have to continue to reckon with a domestically turbulent future and lurking foreign enemies.

“They (the regime) have more confidence and probably more support because they’ve survived the war and have a sufficiently loyal base,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at London’s Chatham House think tank. “But they still have a component of the population who would like to see the end of the Islamic Republic.”

Despite widespread hardship, daily life in Iran has largely carried on amid the greatest existential threat in the Islamic Republic’s 47-year history. A military and economic resilience strategy prepared the country for prolonged conflict, in which asymmetric tactics proved effective and a new generation of commanders has emerged.

But ordinary Iranians have borne the brunt of the US attacks, with more than 3,000 people killed in the three-plus months of war. Prices of essential goods have soared and many people have lost their jobs, with millions now at risk of falling into poverty amid widespread economic struggles.

“For the Iranian people, they need to see dividends of the war,” said Toossi, the CIP analyst. “The Islamic Republic is telling them their grand strategy paid off and there will be a new regional order, but if the people cannot see that on the dinner tables, then the regim…