{"id":5010,"date":"2026-03-30T06:48:03","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T06:48:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/myanmarmuslim.news\/en\/?p=5010"},"modified":"2026-03-30T06:50:18","modified_gmt":"2026-03-30T06:50:18","slug":"who-really-wins-a-realistic-look-at-the-u-s-israel-vs-iran-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/myanmarmuslim.news\/en\/2026\/03\/30\/who-really-wins-a-realistic-look-at-the-u-s-israel-vs-iran-conflict\/","title":{"rendered":"Who Really Wins? A Realistic Look at the U.S.\u2013Israel vs Iran Conflict \u1021\u1019\u1031\u101b\u102d\u1000\u1014\u103a+\u1021\u1005\u1039\u1005\u101b\u1031\u1038 vs \u1021\u102e\u101b\u1014\u103a \u1005\u1005\u103a\u1015\u103d\u1032\u1019\u103e\u102c \u1021\u102c\u1038\u101c\u102f\u1036\u1038\u1014\u102e\u1038\u1015\u102b\u1038 \u101b\u103e\u102f\u1036\u1038\u1000\u103c\u1015\u102b\u1010\u101a\u103a"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Adaptation of Kaung Kin Ko<\/strong><\/a>‘s post into English. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a war between the United States + Israel and Iran, both sides lose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, \u201cwinning\u201d and \u201closing\u201d can be defined differently. When I say the United States loses, I do not mean it collapses as a country. I mean that its outcomes fall short of its expectations\u2014that the costs outweigh the gains, that its power declines, and that its strategic calculations do not match reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. might even be capable\u2014at its maximum potential\u2014of invading Iran with ground forces and installing a friendly government. Let us assume, for argument\u2019s sake, that it succeeds at that highest level. Even then, the cost would be far greater than anticipated: more American lives lost, heavy sacrifices from allies like Israel and Arab states, enormous financial burdens, potential damage to the role of the dollar, and a decline in soft power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And even if such a regime change were achieved, would it last? The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is already an example of how such \u201csuccesses\u201d can still end in failure. So \u201closing\u201d here does not mean total defeat\u2014it means overextension, miscalculation, and long-term weakening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any war, civilians suffer the most. Iranian schoolgirls, ordinary families\u2014just as civilians on the other side\u2014would bear the brunt. Many Iranians who already dislike their own government would still not welcome the United States. After all, they would see it as a bombing force waging what appears to be an unjust war of aggression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran Also Loses<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Iran loses as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if one argues that Iran \u201cwins\u201d by inflicting damage on the U.S., the reality is still loss. The deaths of key leaders alone already signal weakness\u2014showing a lack of security and vulnerability at the highest levels. Leadership can be replaced, yes, but how sustainable is that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if Iran manages to endure, its people will suffer. Infrastructure will be destroyed, cities damaged, and the country set back significantly. Arab nations are also growing more hostile toward Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From an outside perspective, it might have been better for Iran to handle tensions with Arab countries diplomatically and with restraint. That said, this is only an external view\u2014there may be constraints that make such restraint impossible, especially given the presence of U.S. military bases in those countries. If attacks are launched from there, Iran cannot simply remain passive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, had diplomacy succeeded, Iran might have avoided expanding its list of enemies. That opportunity seems to have been lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the war may clearly be initiated as an aggressive move by leaders like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the world may not judge it that way in the long run. If global economies are affected, pressure will eventually fall on Iran\u2014especially since it would be responsible for reopening key maritime routes. For now, pressure is directed more at Trump, as the war is widely seen as unjust. But over time, that focus could shift.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Arab countries were to unite militarily against Iran, it would be extremely difficult for Iran to withstand. Even groups like the Houthis\u2014who claim to support Iran\u2014do not fully control Yemen themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if the war ends through negotiation, mutual trust will be deeply damaged. That, too, is a form of loss for Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arab States Also Lose<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Arab countries such as the United Arab Emirates would also suffer. Their economies would be disrupted, their security threatened, and investor confidence shaken. They, too, lose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, tensions between Arab states and Iran are often more about governments than ordinary people. Among the general public, hostility is often directed more toward the United States and Israel. This creates a dilemma: while some Arab governments may lean toward supporting the U.S., doing so risks domestic backlash from their own populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who Wins? Possibly China<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If anyone benefits, it may be China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The China would likely feel less impact from energy disruptions. The yuan could gain relative strength. As the U.S. spends heavily, loses prestige, and sees its soft power decline, China gains strategic advantage as a competitor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

China may also benefit from arms sales and from countries distancing themselves from the U.S. and seeking closer ties with Beijing. It can largely \u201csit back,\u201d intervening only when necessary. If it chooses, it has enough influence to persuade Iran toward de-escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a strategic perspective, the U.S. engaging in conflict with Iran instead of focusing on competing with China resembles a top-tier team wasting energy playing in a lower division. It expends strength without addressing its primary rival.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, China\u2019s gains have limits. If Iran were to collapse completely and fall under long-term U.S. influence, China would lose an important oil supplier and a strategic partner. Stability in the Middle East is also crucial for China\u2019s Belt and Road Initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Secondary Winners and Losers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Reduced global attention on the Russia\u2013Ukraine War could benefit Russia, though that requires deeper analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the losers are Trump and his supporters. Millions have protested against him. Even Bernie Sanders has opposed U.S. arms sales to Israel, criticizing the use of taxpayer money in what he describes as enabling atrocities in Gaza.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, some right-wing Americans\u2014who usually oppose figures like Sanders\u2014have found themselves agreeing with him. While social media reactions cannot fully represent public opinion, they do indicate that Trump\u2019s political standing is being affected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A different U.S. president might still pursue dominance\u2014as great powers tend to do\u2014but likely with more restraint. Trump, however, appears more impulsive and short-term focused. He often views foreign aid simply as financial loss, without considering its role in maintaining soft power. By acting openly and aggressively, he exposes what was previously hidden, damaging U.S. credibility and influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Final Thought<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If we look strictly within the battlefield, one side may eventually suffer far more than the other, or even be forced into submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the definition of \u201cwinning\u201d and \u201closing\u201d used here goes beyond immediate battlefield outcomes. It includes long-term consequences, indirect impacts, and the broader losses suffered by all parties involved\u2014even those not directly part of the conflict, such as countries affected by rising fuel costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In that broader sense, this is a war where almost everyone loses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Translator\u2019s Note: A Painful Reflection from Myanmar<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While this conflict unfolds far away, its emotional and social impact has reached Myanmar in troubling ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a time when the people of Myanmar are already suffering\u2014from revolution, military oppression, forced conscription, economic restrictions, and local armed conflicts\u2014another layer of division has emerged online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across communities\u2014military supporters, opposition groups, ethnic forces, and civilians\u2014there has been a surge of hostility directed at Muslims, accusing them of \u201csupporting Iran.\u201d These attacks often include abusive, vulgar, and deeply insulting language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is happening despite the fact that Myanmar\u2019s people have no real influence on this distant conflict<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The situation is especially tragic because all communities in Myanmar\u2014Rakhine, ethnic minorities, Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims alike\u2014are already enduring immense hardship. Instead of unity, this has led to further fragmentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is, sadly, an ugly and shameful spectacle<\/strong>\u2014one that reflects not strength, but pain, frustration, and misplaced anger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a time when compassion and solidarity are most needed, division only deepens suffering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appendix: The Overlooked Cost for Israel<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While the main analysis focuses on the United States and Iran, it is important to briefly consider the position of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if Israel achieves short-term military objectives, it also faces significant losses:<\/p>\n\n\n\n