Who Won War—Military Power or Hearts of People?
Shazia Mehboob
Islamabad: The body of Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been moved to the Grand Mosque in Tehran, where mourning ceremonies and religious rituals are underway.
Millions of mourners from across Iran and abroad are expected to participate in the funeral, with Iranian officials claiming that nearly 20 million people could attend.
Tehran has also announced that senior government and political representatives from around 100 countries will be present, including presidents, prime ministers, parliamentary leaders, foreign ministers, and other high-level delegations.
Among those attending are Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Field Marshal Asim Munir, Senate Chairman Yousaf Raza Gilani, and other senior Pakistani officials.
Delegations from countries including China, Russia, India, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, the Central Asian republics, Cuba, Serbia, Tunisia, Ghana, Namibia, Myanmar, Thailand, Gambia, and Nicaragua are also expected.
According to Iranian officials, additional security forces have been deployed across Tehran to ensure the safety of visiting dignitaries and the millions expected to participate in the ceremonies.
Iranian authorities argue that what could become one of the largest funeral gatherings in modern history demonstrates that, despite war, sanctions, and immense suffering, Iran has not lost its political, religious, cultural, or diplomatic significance.
Instead, they portray the massive turnout and international participation as evidence of national resilience and enduring influence.
The public participation in Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral, along with the presence of world leaders and senior officials, sends one message. Yet another narrative is being presented by Iran’s adversaries.
Since the conflict, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed on Truth Social and other public platforms that Iran has been destroyed and decisively defeated. Israeli leaders have made similar assertions, portraying the military campaign as a strategic victory.
These claims have continued despite ongoing diplomatic efforts involving regional mediators, including Pakistan and Qatar.
There is no denying that Iran suffered severe losses. Its military infrastructure, strategic facilities, economy, and senior leadership sustained significant damage, the effects of which may take years, if not decades, to overcome.
The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, regarded by many as the architect of Iran’s military doctrine and long-term strategic vision, represents not only a leadership vacuum but also a profound emotional loss for many Iranians.
From a military perspective, the United States and Israel demonstrated overwhelming technological superiority. The United States deployed B-2 Spirit stealth bombers against hardened underground facilities, supported by F-35 Lightning II and F-22 Raptor fighters, while KC-46 Pegasus and KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft enabled sustained long-range missions.
Israel relied on F-35I Adir stealth fighters, F-15I Ra’am strike aircraft, F-16I Sufa multirole fighters, and aerial refueling tankers to conduct long-range precision operations.
Defensively, Israel and the United States operated one of the world’s most sophisticated integrated air-defense networks, combining Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3, US-operated THAAD batteries, and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System aboard US naval vessels to intercept Iranian missiles and drones.
These capabilities undoubtedly provided the United States and Israel with a decisive technological and military advantage. However, military superiority alone does not necessarily settle the broader question of victory.
If Iran had been completely defeated in every sense, why has Tehran become the focus of global attention today?
Why are millions expected to gather for Khamenei’s funeral? Why are leaders and senior officials from around 100 countries travelling to Tehran to pay their respects?
These scenes suggest that military outcomes and political symbolism do not always tell the same story. Military success may destroy infrastructure and weaken an adversary’s capabilities, but public solidarity, diplomatic engagement, and national resilience shape another dimension of conflict that cannot be measured solely by bombs, missiles, or battlefield achievements.
This does not erase Iran’s losses, nor does it diminish the military achievements claimed by the United States and Israel. Both realities can exist simultaneously. Iran suffered extensive human, economic, military, and leadership losses, while the United States and Israel demonstrated overwhelming military and technological dominance.
Yet whether those achievements alone constitute complete victory remains open to debate.
Perhaps the real question is not who won the war, but how victory should be defined in the twenty-first century. Is victory measured only by military strength and technological superiority? Or should public support, national resilience, political symbolism, and diplomatic influence also be considered part of the equation?
In my view, the traditional definition of victory, one shaped largely by the World Wars, no longer fully explains the realities of modern conflicts. Contemporary wars are fought not only on battlefields but also in the realms of politics, diplomacy, public opinion, media, and national identity.
The funeral of late Khamenei, regardless of one’s political perspective, has revived that debate. It reminds the world leaders that while military power can destroy cities, installations, and command structures, it does not always determine how history defines victory.
So, who won the war—military power or the hearts of the people? Perhaps the answer depends less on the battlefield and more on how we choose to define victory itself.
Shazia Mehboob is a PhD scholar and a visiting faculty member. She is also an investigative journalist and the founder of The PenPK.com. She tweets @thepenpk.
