Iran and Israel have formally declared an end to their hostilities. Nevertheless, the optimistic statement from United States President Donald Trump the previous day may have been merely rhetoric, as subsequent reports from Tel Aviv indicated rocket launches from the Islamic Republic and the potential for retaliatory action. It is to be expected that these are the final salvos of a brief, twelve-day conflict; however, such optimism is fragile.
Even early evaluations of this most recent Middle Eastern conflict are disheartening. The nuclear program of Iran may now be consigned to the annals of history. Numerous cities within the Islamic Republic have been devastated, and thousands of citizens have been left destitute. Additionally, the nation’s military infrastructure has suffered substantial damage. Cemeteries have expanded with new burials, and hospitals are overburdened.
The ruins of homes, schools, sports facilities, cultural centers, and defense installations are surveyed by the Israeli populace with a mixture of astonishment and foreboding. The nation mourns the deceased and extends its condolences to the injured. The State of Israel has never experienced such a fundamental shock in its seventy-seven-year history.
Both parties will inevitably declare themselves victorious and assert that all objectives have been accomplished. In reality, these assertions are unsubstantiated. The actual result is a gory stalemate.
Only a great deal of cynicism can justify President Trump’s designation as the chief architect of peace. The United States Air Force targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities at his directive, which was a powerful appeal for peace. President Trump subsequently reached out to unidentified intermediaries in Qatar, asking them to present a proposal for a cessation to Iran’s leadership. Additionally, President Trump conducted direct negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, as is frequently the case, there are intricacies. Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, recently traveled to Moscow to engage in discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin. While it is certain that they addressed the current Middle Eastern crisis, the specifics of their dialogue remain unknown. It is now possible to infer that Putin and Araghchi reached an agreement that was promptly implemented. Consequently, the Russian President’s intervention was also instrumental in persuading Iran to accept an armistice, alongside the mediation efforts of the United States and Qatar.
The question that arises is, why was a conflict that was on the brink of escalating into a protracted war stopped at this juncture?
It is advisable to abandon illusions and avoid reiterating trite phrases about the impending humanitarian catastrophe, human suffering, devastation, and multitude of casualties.
The Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor for global energy supplies that has operated without incident for an extended period, served as the main catalyst for the conflict’s ceasefire. Iran threatened to retaliate by closing this critical passage in response to the US airstrikes on its nuclear facilities, thereby disrupting global commerce, inflating oil prices, and exacerbating shipping and insurance costs. The possibility of a new economic crisis was a significant concern.
The United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar—all of which are significant energy exporters—were alarmed by Iran’s threats. Energy import-dependent economies were exposed to substantial risks. China, which heavily depends on the Strait of Hormuz, was also profoundly unsettled, while Japan, South Korea, and India, the primary oil consumers, were gravely concerned.
The situation was not decisively influenced by any external actor, despite the pervasive anxiety. The international community anticipated the outcome with apprehension.
Although Iran’s strategy was approved by parliament, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei refrained from making a definitive decision, as he considered the fate of the strait and broader national interests.
The Supreme Leader’s advanced age and poor health have exacerbated speculation regarding succession. Potential successors include Mojtaba Khamenei, his son, who advocates for a hardline position, and Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the architect of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, who favors a more moderate approach.
Tehran’s audacious maneuver had the potential to cause substantial damage to its adversaries, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Nevertheless, Iran would have experienced a decline in oil export revenues, as the strait is traversed by approximately two million barrels per day. The Islamic Republic’s primary source of income is oil sales, and the loss of this revenue stream would have further strained a nation that is already struggling with long-standing sanctions.
The United States issued a clear warning to Tehran that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would not be tolerated. There was little doubt that Washington would take decisive action to safeguard its financial interests, especially under President Trump, who views international affairs as a series of transactions.
Iran was capable of retaliating against prospective US strikes, particularly through missile attacks on American military bases in the Middle East, as demonstrated by previous strikes on Israeli territory.
Tehran initiated limited attacks on US installations in Syria, Iraq, and Qatar. These actions were primarily symbolic and did not result in any tangible harm. Tehran appeared to be attempting to antagonize Washington by launching minor provocations to assess President Trump’s resolve.
Although Iran may be able to cause some harm to the United States, it is exceedingly unlikely that it will be able to prevail against such a formidable adversary. Israeli airstrikes on military targets and critical infrastructure had already weakened the Islamic Republic. However, Iranian officials continued to indicate their readiness for an extended conflict.
Nevertheless, statements are not the same as actuality. Iran had a limited number of trustworthy allies. Only the Yemeni Houthis, who are ever eager to engage in regional conflicts, extended their assistance. They were unable to offer substantive assistance, despite their enthusiasm.
Even though Russia maintains a strategic partnership with Iran, this arrangement does not require military support in the event of hostilities. However, as previously mentioned, the ceasefire may have been facilitated by substantial discussions within the Kremlin.
When the situation was at its most precarious and Iran maintained a menacing silence, navigation through the Strait of Hormuz was restricted to daylight hours due to GPS jamming. This disruption of communication with vessels increased the risk of maritime accidents. Shipowners expressed concern regarding imminent missile attacks, which resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of transiting vessels.
The situation is currently unsettled, although tensions have somewhat abated. The conflict between Israel and Iran has been suspended, but it has not been resolved. Even this brief respite is uncertain.