President Donald Trump on Sunday pushed back against a New York Times analysis that questioned what had changed following nearly four months of war with Iran.

The president argued that the conflict crippled Tehran's military, weakened its economy, and strengthened the U.S.

"The headline in the Corrupt and Failing New York Times: 'What Changed After Almost 4 Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much.' REALLY?" Trump posted on Truth Social. 

"Their Military is DONE, their Navy is GONE, their Air Force is GONE, their Launching Pads, Missiles, Drones and Manufacturing of same, is almost GONE, their top two sets of Leaders are GONE, their Inflation is at 250%, their Economy is BROKEN, their Soldiers aren't being paid, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at record HIGHS. That's what's CHANGED, you corrupt and unethical cowards, and MORE!!!" Trump added.

The post came in response to the Times' analysis published Sunday that examined the aftermath of the conflict and the memorandum of understanding reached between Washington and Tehran roughly 100 days after Trump launched military operations against Iran on Feb. 28.

The analysis questioned whether the war achieved its stated objectives, noting that Iran's nuclear program was heavily damaged but not eliminated, while its ballistic missile program remained intact.

According to the report, Iran's ruling regime survived despite leadership changes, and Tehran-backed proxy groups continue to pose security challenges throughout the region.

Fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has also continued despite the agreement.

One of the memorandum's central provisions was reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.

But by Saturday, competing claims emerged over whether Iran was again restricting access to the waterway after accusing the U.S. of failing to curb violence in Lebanon.

Caitlin Talmadge, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who specializes in Persian Gulf security, told the Times the agreement reflected Washington's desire to avoid further escalation rather than a demonstration of military success.

"I think it's a document that has resulted from the fact that the United States bit off more than it could chew and doesn't want to escalate," Talmadge said.

The agreement would provide Iran with major economic benefits, including the lifting of U.S. sanctions, access to frozen assets, a Gulf Arab-backed reconstruction fund, and the end of an American naval blockade, according to the report.

Iranian officials have portrayed the agreement's outcome as a victory. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran's Parliament and a lead negotiator, told Iranian state TV that the conflict demonstrated Tehran's ability to exert influence through the Strait of Hormuz.

Vice President JD Vance defended the agreement, telling reporters that economic incentives could encourage Iran to alter its behavior after decades of hostility toward America and its regional allies.

"People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that's true, and if so, they don't get any of the benefits of the bargain," Vance said. "But isn't it worth trying?"

Several regional experts expressed skepticism. Karim Haggag, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, told the Times that conflicts in the Middle East often produce greater instability rather than moderation.

The analysis also examined the agreement's impact on regional actors, with some analysts contending the conflict weakened U.S. leverage by demonstrating the limits of military force.

In contrast, others pointed to widespread destruction inside Iran, tensions between Washington and Israel over the agreement, and continuing instability involving Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Paul Salem, a Middle East analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, summarized the concerns expressed by many observers, telling the Times: "I'm skeptical that much progress will be made on the nuclear issue now that the U.S. has removed the main leverage that it has.

"So in a way, this deal is a bit of a nothing burger at the end of this very long and devastating war."