A pause or a prelude? The fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel

Al Arabiya

4 hours ago

On June 25, 2025, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran came into effect, bringing a sudden and dramatic halt to twelve days of direct and unprecedented military confrontation. The truce surprised many observers around the world. For weeks, tensions had escalated rapidly after Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by a wave of Iranian missile and drone retaliation. The ferocity of the exchange, coupled with long-standing hostilities between the two states, led many analysts and politicians to assume that Israel would pursue the campaign until Iran's nuclear infrastructure was completely dismantled or until the Islamic Republic's central authority was irreparably shaken.
Many expected Israel to press its military advantage and continue striking; There were even speculations that the broader goal might be to destabilize or collapse the Iranian government altogether. Yet the ceasefire, as unexpected as it may have seemed to some, was ultimately the product of deeper historical patterns, strategic calculations, and logistical realities.
First, a look at the history of Israel's military conflicts reveals that temporary ceasefires are a consistent feature of its wartime strategy. During past wars with Hezbollah in Lebanon or in operations against Hamas in Gaza, ceasefires were accepted at key junctures. These pauses have rarely signaled the end of conflict. Instead, they have served multiple purposes – providing breathing room for the population, allowing the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to assess battlefield performance, and giving political leaders time to navigate shifting diplomatic and military conditions. In that context, the current ceasefire with Iran should not come as a shock. Though the stakes and geography are dramatically broader in this case, the strategic logic remains consistent. Ceasefires could be tactical pauses.
For Israel, this ceasefire most likely offers significant, albeit temporary, advantages. First and foremost, it allows the government and military command to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of their twelve-day aerial campaign. With advanced surveillance, satellite imaging, and digital tracking systems, Israel can now measure the success of its strikes, identify which Iranian assets remain intact, and prepare for any future engagements. These kinds of reassessments are critical in an era of high-tech, multi-front warfare.
Second, the truce enables Israeli civilians to return to a semblance of normalcy. Throughout the conflict, cities like Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba were subjected to repeated Iranian missile and drone attacks. For many residents, life had ground to a halt. The ceasefire now allows citizens to reemerge, regroup, and recover from the psychological strain of continuous alerts and air raid sirens. The return to normal life – no matter how temporary – is a crucial relief for the country. Third, the ceasefire grants Israel a valuable diplomatic opportunity. By agreeing to halt its military operations – even after successfully striking key targets – Israel projects to the international community that it is not pursuing escalation for its own sake. This move can help mend some of the frayed ties with Europe and parts of the Global South, where criticism of Israeli military policy has grown. At the same time, it reinforces Israel's image as a responsible actor, capable of restraint even in the face of provocation.
Fourth, the IDF now has time to replenish its resources, repair any damage to bases or weapons systems, and evaluate operational weaknesses. Despite Israel's superiority in the air, the Iranian counterattacks – especially the use of longer-range drones – provided Israel with a sobering glimpse into Iran's evolving tactics. This ceasefire gives the Israeli military the space to adapt, train, and integrate new technologies into their defense apparatus. Fifth, and no less important, the ceasefire allows Israel to redirect its focus to other strategic concerns. With the Iranian front on pause, Israel can recalibrate its posture and attend to other critical theaters.
From Iran's perspective, the need for a ceasefire was even more urgent. For nearly two weeks, Israeli air dominance over Iran was overwhelming. Precision strikes targeted military installations, air defense systems, radar units, and multiple nuclear-related sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Arak. In addition, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) suffered major losses, including several high-ranking commanders. The Iranian public – already under severe economic pressure from international sanctions – faced further hardship as oil refineries and power grids were damaged. More than 100,000 residents fled Tehran in a matter of days, fearful that the next wave of Israeli strikes would devastate the capital.
Internally, the government faced growing frustration: How could a country with one of the region's largest militaries be so vulnerable? Why had the government not anticipated the scale of Israeli retaliation? The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly faced intense pressure from within the elite circles of the IRGC and clerical establishment. In such a climate, agreeing to a ceasefire was less about diplomacy and more about necessity. Iran needed to stop the bleeding – militarily, politically, and psychologically. The pause offers Tehran a chance to evaluate the damage, regroup its forces, and attempt to fortify what remains of its nuclear infrastructure. It also gives the leadership time to address domestic unrest, recalibrate messaging, and possibly shift blame onto external enemies to consolidate control.
Yet the key question remains: will the ceasefire hold?
If past history is any indicator, the prospects are not encouraging. Ceasefires in this region are rarely long-lasting. They are fragile by design – stopgaps between rounds of fighting, not solutions to the underlying tensions. In this case, the balance of power has shifted dramatically, and that creates an incentive for renewed confrontation. For Israel, walking away from a conflict while the Iranian government is at its weakest point in decades might be seen as a strategic blunder. This is a rare window – one where Iran's command structure has been shaken, its nuclear plans disrupted, and its population demoralized. Some in the Israeli cabinet may argue that allowing Iran to recover from this moment would be tantamount to leaving a wounded enemy alive on the battlefield.
Moreover, from a strategic standpoint, Israel now faces the risk that Iran – having experienced such a devastating attack – will accelerate its push for nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had not made the political decision to pursue a bomb before, this war may have changed that calculus. The logic of deterrence could now dominate Iran's thinking: Only by acquiring a nuclear weapon, Iranian strategists may argue, can the country prevent another catastrophic strike. Iran has already announced the suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a worrying signal that transparency is no longer a priority. In this environment, trust is virtually nonexistent.
Finally, the ceasefire's fragility is also reinforced by the broader geopolitical context. Proxy forces aligned with Iran – particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Iraq – remain active. They can resume attacks on Israel or US allies at any time, either with or without Tehran's direct orders. Any incident along these fronts could easily unravel the ceasefire. Similarly, internal politics in both countries can lead to escalation. An assassination, a rogue militia strike, or even a political crisis could reignite hostilities overnight.
In conclusion, while both Israel and Iran found compelling reasons to agree to this ceasefire – strategic breathing room, humanitarian concerns, and domestic stability – the truce rests on shaky foundations. It is, in many ways, a pause born of exhaustion rather than reconciliation. As history has repeatedly shown, these kinds of ceasefires in the Middle East are inherently unstable. Unless profound diplomatic engagement follows – and there is little sign of that at present – the risk of renewed war remains not only possible, but probable.