Fragile Truce: Unpacking the uneasy ceasefire between Israel and Iran

Shafaq News

15 hours ago

Shafaq News
The recent ceasefire, announced by US President Donald Trump, momentarily silenced the 12-day exchange of fire between Israel and Iran. Yet, for seasoned observers, this halt in direct military confrontation marks not an end to hostilities but rather a complex, transitional phase.
Analysts widely anticipate a pattern of continued low-intensity conflict, drawing stark parallels to the fragile ceasefire in Lebanon that Israel frequently breaches. The prevailing sentiment among experts is that neither Tehran nor Tel Aviv has fully achieved its strategic objectives, with Israel's perceived unmet goals particularly fueling this pervasive skepticism. This unresolved tension sets the stage for a period characterized by recurrent violations, escalating accusations, and a persistent, multi-faceted struggle encompassing intelligence, political, and economic warfare, all of which hold the potential to reignite full-scale military conflict.
A Decades-Long Shadow War Escalates
The recent escalation is rooted in a decades-long, undeclared conflict between Iran and Israel. What began as a "cold peace" in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which saw the ousting of the pro-Western Shah, gradually transformed into open hostility. Iran's rejection of Israel's legitimacy and its support for regional proxy groups, notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and various factions in Syria, Gaza, and Yemen, solidified its "Axis of Resistance." In response, Israel, viewing Iran's nuclear program and regional influence as an existential threat, adopted a more aggressive posture. This strategic rivalry has manifested through covert operations, assassinations of nuclear scientists and military figures, cyberattacks, and targeted airstrikes.
The immediate trigger for this recent 12-day confrontation, which began on June 13th, 2025, remains a subject of intense debate, but it undeniably marked a significant escalation beyond the typical "shadow war" into direct, overt military action. This period saw Israel launching extensive strikes targeting what it claimed were Iranian nuclear facilities and missile production sites, while Iran retaliated with its own ballistic missile and drone attacks. The US, a key ally of Israel, also engaged in strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure, raising the stakes and highlighting the global dimensions of this regional rivalry.
Unfulfilled Ambitions and Strategic Divergence
The announced ceasefire has been met with a mix of cautious acceptance and profound skepticism across various stakeholder groups, each driven by their own perceived gains and losses, and their long-term strategic objectives.
From Lebanon, Qassem Qasir, a seasoned political writer, emphasized that the ceasefire "cannot be considered the end of the war." He articulated that Israel's publicly stated goals focused on dismantling Iran's nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities.
However, Qasir pointed to a more ambitious, unstated objective, "the overthrow of the regime in Iran," citing the unprecedented scale of apprehended spy networks as compelling evidence of this deeper agenda, suggesting that these networks played a crucial role in enabling the targeting of missile and drone launches.
'This reflects a pervasive belief that Israel views the very existence of the current Iranian regime as an impediment to regional stability and its own long-term security.'
Dr. Munqith Dagher, the head of the Independent Institute of Administration and Civil Society Studies (IIACSS), asserted that the "conflict has not ended; it is still ongoing because neither party (Iran or Israel) feels they have achieved their goals yet, especially Israel."
Dagher posited that Israel perceives the current situation as a "golden opportunity" – a fleeting window not just for neutralizing Iran's nuclear program, but for pursuing the far more ambitious goal of "attempting to topple the regime."
Consequently, Dagher anticipates that even if the ceasefire holds militarily, the broader "war" will persist through non-conventional means, including intensified "intelligence, political, and economic" warfare, with the looming threat of renewed military escalation.
He also offered a shrewd interpretation of US President Trump's role, suggesting that his intervention was driven by a desire for a "propaganda victory to reduce pressure from the Zionist lobby for his non-participation in the war, thereby trying to present himself as a war hero who entered and quickly ended it."
Dr. Issam Al-Faili, a professor of political science, acknowledged the international perception Trump sought to cultivate – that of a global peacemaker capable of halting major conflicts. He conceded that a sustained ceasefire could indeed be hailed as a "major political achievement." However, Al-Faili grounded his analysis in the immediate realities, cautioning that "current data indicates this truce will be fragile."
Furthermore, Al-Faili underlined the deep-seated grievances driving the two sides, "both parties to the conflict seek revenge; Iran will not forget the assassination of its leaders, and Israel does not want to maintain any nuclear or missile program, but rather to eliminate the Iranian regime to prevent any obstacles to the Abraham Project, which represents Israel's continuity in the region."
A Strategic Crossroads for Iran
The consensus among analysts is that the ceasefire, rather than concluding the conflict, has merely ushered in a new, more complex phase of strategic maneuvering. For Iran, this period presents a critical crossroads, forcing a re-evaluation of its long-term strategy in the face of unprecedented pressure.
George Al-Aqouri, a Lebanese writer and political researcher, asserted a significant shift in the regional power balance, contending that regardless of the ceasefire's durability, it "reflects the reality that nuclear and ballistic Iran has ended after decades of efforts to acquire nuclear capability, as it was eliminated within minutes by American strikes, and ballistic missiles were melted down." This is a bold claim, suggesting a profound setback to Iran's strategic deterrence capabilities. Al-Aqouri further observed a notable lack of response from Iran's regional proxies, "Iran's proxies in the region did not move, and indeed, lack the ability to move, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the new reality in Syria, down to Yemen; any movement by them would have been a suicidal act."
He also drew a historical parallel, suggesting that "Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei might once again drink the bitter cup of 1988 when an agreement was reached to end the war with Iraq," indicating that Khamenei might be forced to accept a difficult reality to preserve his regime.
Salim Al-Jumaili, a former Iraqi intelligence officer, offered Iran two stark strategic models: the "Japanese model" and the "Iraqi model." The Japanese model, he explained, references post-World War II Japan's decision to abandon militarism, embrace industrial development, and forge a strategic alliance with the United States for national survival and prosperity. 'This path emphasizes economic pragmatism over ideological confrontation.'
In contrast, the Iraqi model, following the 1991 Gulf War, describes Iraq's choice of 'continued defiance and diplomatic maneuvering, which ultimately led to the regime's overthrow 12 years later.'
Al-Jumaili warned that "Iran today realizes that the Russia, China, and North Korea axis protects no one, and that it is merely a fragile balance that cannot stand against America."
Dr. Asif Melhem, Director of JSM-Center for Scientific Research & Studies in Moscow, provided a geopolitical lens, arguing that a core objective of the conflict was to render "the front in Iran almost vulnerable, similar to the situation in Lebanon, which Israel constantly violates."
Melhem articulated the US strategic perspective: "America views Israel as a spearhead, an advanced base, and an executive tool in the Arab region, and therefore it must remain in a state of continuous conflict." What distinguishes this recent conflict, he noted, is its geographical scope, extending "far from Israel's security perimeter" into Iran itself.
He posited that the conflict's deeper aim was not merely Iran's nuclear program, but rather "to ignite Iran and its surroundings," encompassing Central Asia, the Caucasus, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – regions that "directly affect Russia, China, and India." Melhem further linked this to the formation of a new anti-American bloc, comprising "China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea" within frameworks like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
"The war has not ended but has moved into a new phase where blackmail and pressure increase, and thus America got what it wanted, which uses wars as a tool to achieve economic gains." This implies a long-term strategy of attrition and economic leverage.
A Protracted Struggle and Redefined Regional Dynamics
The ceasefire, rather than ushering in peace, signals a new, more complex phase of confrontation. This period will likely be characterized by:
-Sustained Non-Military Warfare: Expect intensified intelligence operations, cyber warfare, political pressure campaigns, and economic sanctions. These will be the primary tools of engagement, aiming to achieve objectives that direct military force could not, or could not sustain.
-Persistent Violations and Accusations: The inherent fragility of the truce, coupled with the unresolved objectives of both sides, guarantees a cycle of accusations and counter-accusations regarding violations, potentially leading to limited, retaliatory strikes. The "Lebanese scenario" of an unstable border and frequent breaches may well become the norm for the Israeli-Iranian dynamic.
-Heightened Regional Instability: The conflict has demonstrated the willingness of major powers to engage directly in the region. This increases the risk of broader regional conflagration, particularly if Iran's proxies are further weakened or if it feels compelled to take more aggressive retaliatory action.
-Re-evaluation of Deterrence: For Iran, the impact on its nuclear and missile programs, as perceived by some analysts, will necessitate a re-evaluation of its deterrence strategy and its reliance on regional proxies.
-Economic Consequences: Beyond the immediate military and human costs (about 650 Iranian deaths and 5332 injured, alongside 28 Israeli deaths reported as of June 24th), the protracted uncertainty and potential for renewed conflict will continue to deter investment, disrupt trade routes, and impact energy markets, with significant economic ramifications for the entire Middle East.
In brief, the deep-seated animosities, unfulfilled strategic objectives, and the involvement of global powers suggest a protracted period of instability rather than a genuine resolution. The Abraham Project, implicitly aimed at reordering regional alliances against Iran, and Iran's unwavering commitment to its Axis of Resistance philosophy, ensures that the fundamental drivers of conflict remain intact.