Where is Iran headed after the ceasefire

Al Arabiya

7 hours ago

On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced an Israel-Iran ceasefire, after 12 days of intense escalation between the warring sides. The peak of that escalation came when US forces struck three sensitive Iranian nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – with precision strikes. These three sites are considered the backbone of Iran's nuclear program.
For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app.
Amid the flurry of analyses, this announcement appeared as a pivotal moment that warrants pause and reflection – not just as a step to de-escalate tensions, but also to understand Iran's place within the complex regional and global landscape.
Since Khomeini's revolution in 1979, Iran has presented itself as the center of resistance forces in the Middle East. It built a political narrative based on standing firm against external pressures and supported anti-Western movements. It began with the hostage-taking of 52 American embassy staff in Tehran for 444 days and went on to directly target American interests in the region, all while chanting anti-US slogans and labeling it the 'Great Satan.' This approach undeniably granted Tehran influence within certain radical circles in the region, but on the flip side, it placed Iran in ongoing confrontation with its regional and global surroundings, leading to growing isolation – an isolation whose greatest cost was borne by the Iranian people.
American writer Thomas Friedman wrote in The New York Times two days ago that Iran chose from the beginning to align itself with the 'resistance axis' that thrives on conflict, in contrast to other regional powers that bet on development, integration, and prosperity. While Tehran may have made some military progress, Friedman argues that the losses it has sustained – economically, socially, and diplomatically – far outweigh any gains. While internal burdens piled up inside Iran, neighboring moderate states were achieving growth indicators and strengthening their diplomatic presence as influential players on the global stage.
Iran's insistence on its nuclear program stands as one of the clearest manifestations of the path it has chosen. The program is no longer just a subject of international suspicion – it has become a real threat to Iran itself before even threatening its neighbors. Today, the world no longer views nuclear capabilities as symbols of deterrence or admiration, but rather with suspicion – especially when such capabilities are tied to a vague political ideology and tense regional relations. How can a country demand the trust of the international community while simultaneously raising the level of threat to such heights? And how can anyone feel assured about a nation that operates under the logic that the only guarantee for survival is the pursuit of destructive tools?
The truth is, the core issue does not lie in the nuclear program itself as much as it lies in the mentality behind it – a mentality focused on amassing power rather than pursuing development, seeking deterrence more than integration, and fearing its own people more than its adversaries. Unless there is a genuine transformation in this mindset, there will be little difference between the end of one war and the beginning of another, because the core of its political thinking will remain unchanged.
Today, development is no longer a secondary option – it has become the most important benchmark for political legitimacy and the compass by which nations measure their ability to progress and maintain stability. Iran possesses the necessary resources to become a powerful regional economic force – if it chooses that path. But this will not happen without deep internal introspection and a redefinition of what 'power' means within its political discourse.
The ceasefire, as announced by Trump, is not a victory for any side so much as it is a moment of reckoning. Tehran can either seize it as a beginning for a calm inward shift, or remain trapped in cycles of escalation and retreat, of withdrawal and suspicion – of both external and internal matters alike. At this crossroads, the true weight of nations is not measured by the number of ballistic missiles they possess, but by the clarity of their vision and their capacity to foster hope.
Yes, the Iranian revolution has endured for 46 years, but the seismic blows its expansionist projects have suffered in the past two years reveal that this endurance is turning into a burden. What remains of the revolution should, ideally, be translated into a nation-building project – not into further siege and paranoia. Today, countries are measured by what they deliver to their people… not by what fear they instill in others.