Who really won, Iran or Trump? Is there a contradiction? Isn’t this just a Nash equilibrium?!

On Iran’s side, sovereignty is still there, and the current administration hasn’t collapsed—so that counts as a victory.
As for Trump, he’s actually very shrewd. Since late March, he has proposed what he calls a “last ultimatum.” Although on one side he keeps postponing it, on the other side he has continued to strike intermittently.
First, Trump has greatly weakened Iran’s military power.
Because he knows that agreements can be discussed about Iran handing over or diluting the deep-enriched uranium, about opening the strait, and about strengthening, maintaining, weakening, or stopping financial sanctions against Iran. There is no reason for any of Iran’s various military forces to be reduced.
So while delaying, Trump has also been striking. At this point, Iran’s military facilities and supply chains should be reduced by more than half, and quite a number of political and military leaders have also been removed. Whether the current regime stays or not may no longer be important—the nuclear threat has been eliminated, and other forms of force have also been greatly discounted.
Actually, before 1953, the United States had led or helped carry out regime change in Iran, but it still couldn’t sit firmly in the end.
Instead, destroying Iran’s combat capability means that whoever comes to power will have to recover for several years. In 40 days, Trump used firepower to trade for Iran stopping nuclear weapons and suffering massive losses in its military forces, and Iran doesn’t know how many years it will take to bounce back.
This logic is the same as old Mao’s from back then: “Preserve the people but lose the land—both are preserved; preserve the land but lose the people—both are lost.” It’s not about grabbing territory; it’s about making the other side’s living forces disappear.
Second, weakening Iran’s bargaining chips.
In the subsequent negotiations, the smaller Iran’s remaining combat capability is, the smaller the bargaining chips it can have likely will be.
Iran wants compensation, but this isn’t “If I’m weak, then I have reason.” After all, this is different from what happened when Xiao Bush fought Iraq back then. At the time, Xiao Bush said Iraq was researching nuclear weapons, but in the end Iraq had nothing.
But Iran really does have enriched uranium. Trump’s attack on Iran is well grounded.
So the losses Trump has caused Iran are most likely Iran’s sunk costs.
Third, it has almost no impact on the U.S. economy.
As for crude oil and the economy, in the short term, the increase in oil prices doesn’t matter much. Instead, U.S. stocks pull back due to this, and the so-called AI bubble can’t keep inflating—meaning U.S. stock growth may actually become healthier.
So, Trump has also won.
This is a Nash equilibrium!
Of course, this is only the initial stage. Further equilibrium requires negotiations, and the essence of negotiation is seeking a Nash equilibrium.