Ceasefire: for now

The devil is in the details

This, I hope, will be the last in my free series of Iran commentary. Thank you to all who shared and subscribed. Please feel free to continue to do so!

After nearly two weeks of fierce fighting, Israel and Iran appear to have halted hostilities in what President Donald Trump called the “12-Day War”. The ceasefire, announced unilaterally by Trump on Truth Social, signified the end of the fiercest military clash between the two nations in history. The scale of the confrontation was remarkable. Israeli jets flew freely over Iranian skies, Tehran’s defences crumbled within minutes, and US bombers carried out devastating strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Yet, Iran’s regime persisted. As smoke lifts over Tehran and Tel Aviv, it is time to evaluate tentatively what was gained, what was lost, and who ultimately emerged victorious.

Tactical victory for Israel

Israel’s overwhelming tactical victory is unquestionable to the objective commentator. Israel’s immediate military objectives were ambitious: destroy Iran’s nuclear programme, dismantle its long-range missile capabilities, and restore deterrence against a country that has been openly and increasingly hostile.

Israel achieved some of them.

Within 72 hours of the initial attacks, Israeli air superiority over western Iran was complete. Through extensive internal sabotage by Israeli agents and local dissidents, as well as precision airstrikes, Iran’s layered air defence network was nearly entirely dismantled. Israeli jets and drones penetrated deep into Iranian territory, targeting nuclear enrichment sites, missile launchers, IRGC command centres, and government facilities in Tehran, entirely at will.

Israel succeeded in impairing Iran’s capacity to conduct missile warfare. Although Iran has tens of thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, launching them effectively relies on functional command infrastructure, launch sites, and air cover. With these assets destroyed or neutralised, Iran’s retaliatory ability rapidly declined. Instead of large-scale barrages, Iran opted for limited hit-and-run missile strikes, some launched from eastern bases, with the occasional contribution from the Houthis in Yemen.

Israeli intelligence and special operations played a crucial role. Dozens of senior military and IRGC officials were killed in targeted strikes. Senior nuclear scientists were eliminated. Strategic command centres, once believed to be secure, were destroyed. Iran’s military infrastructure sustained a decapitation-level blow.

In purely military terms, Israel achieved a remarkable tactical victory. It demonstrated its ability to project power well beyond its borders, dismantle an adversary’s air defence network, and strike vital assets deep within enemy territory. Israel also showcased the effectiveness of its intelligence system and the coordination of air, cyber, and special forces.

Strategic outcomes

As I wrote here, tactical wins are hard to turn into strategic results. Despite their overwhelming tactical gains, Israel fell short of achieving a complete strategic victory. While the strikes severely damaged Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, they did not eradicate them. Iran had prepared for this scenario. In the days before the conflict, it appears likely that leadership discreetly relocated enriched uranium stockpiles to undisclosed sites. Although locations such as Natanz and Fordow were heavily hit after US B-2 bombers deployed Massive Ordnance Penetrators, some critical nuclear infrastructure and expertise seem certain to have survived. Iran’s knowledge base, dispersed assets, and long-term capacity to regenerate remain broadly intact.

Missile capabilities tell a similar story. While Israel struck known launchers and depots, Iran retains thousands of mobile systems and underground storage sites. Some were destroyed, others evaded detection. Iran’s final fusillade at Israeli cities in the war’s final hours highlighted this ongoing threat, as well as its limited size showing the extent to which launcher capacity was degraded.

Most notably, the Islamic Republic itself endured. Israel’s deeper, unspoken aim, quietly shared by many of its allies, was to incite internal collapse or at least a leadership crisis in Tehran. That did not occur. The regime remained stable. Despite Israel’s best efforts, we did not see the military, social or psychological events needed to signify a likely regime change movement. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard stood firm, security forces suppressed internal dissent, and regime-controlled media swiftly shifted to a narrative of heroic resistance. Israel caused damage to Iran but did not shatter it. The regime’s toxic ideology remains to poison the Middle East further in future.

Iran’s narrative of survival

For the Iranian regime, survival is enough. The ability to absorb an overwhelming assault by Israel and the United States and remain in power is now framed as a victory. Iranian media likened it to the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, portraying the leadership as resilient, the people as unified, and the Islamic Republic as unbowed.

A banner in the Lebanese Hezbollah stronghold of Dahiyeh, Beirut celebrates Iranian “victory”

Iran’s missile attacks on Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa and other Israeli conurbations, even if limited in scale, have been elevated into national myths. The strike on Al Udeid base in Qatar, executed as a macabre piece of theatre with prior warning to avoid casualties, was presented as a message of deterrence and strength. The symbolism mattered. To its allies and adversaries alike, Iran wanted to signal: “We survived. We fought. We endured.”

Internally, this narrative may succeed in the short term. The regime has avoided mass protests, and elite defection has not yet occurred, but beneath the surface, cracks remain. The economic toll is vast, military credibility has been weakened, and confidence in the regime’s ability to defend Iran is shaken, even if not shattered. The leadership avoided defeat, but at a steep price. They were happy to pay it.

Enduring Conflict

No one believes this war has ended the Israel-Iran conflict. If anything, it has opened a new chapter. Israel will now focus on preventing Iran’s recovery. Iranian efforts to reconstruct air defences, missile depots, or nuclear facilities may, in time, be met with pre-emptive strikes.

In the short term, the details of the ceasefire deal will be critical. What oversight mechanisms will be in place? Will Iran be granted sanctions relief, which will undoubtedly be used to rebuild what was lost? How much enriched uranium and nuclear refinement capacity does Iran retain? These are vital questions, and if Trump comes up with the wrong answers, they could well turn an Israeli tactical victory into an outright strategic defeat. The Iranian Regime will not change its cancerous underlying religious and political philosophy because Donald Trump tells them to. The destruction of the State of Israel will remain their aim.

Israeli officials are already talking about a “Lebanon model”, continuing to strike Iranian assets during ceasefire periods to prevent them from reconstituting. However, the fisticuffs between the White House and the warring countries in the immediate aftermath of the ceasefire (Trump’s astonishing statement, “They don’t know what they’re fucking doing,”) suggests this may not be on the cards in the immediate short term. Trump’s statement was a remarkable, chastening moment for Israel that reminded them of their subordinate role and who is really in the driving seat. It is also a reminder that Trump does not realise that war is a feature of international relations, not a bug, and ceasefires rarely hold when the underlying casus belli is not addressed.

Trump delivers his brutal assessment of the Israel-Iran conflict

Meanwhile, Iran is likely to respond asymmetrically in the medium term. Trump will not be in the White House forever. Its proxy network remains intact. Hezbollah’s global narco-criminal network, Shia militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen have not been decisively targeted. In time, Iran can use them to harass Israeli or US interests abroad with plausible deniability. Cyber attacks, covert operations, and sabotage all remain likely. The war’s frontlines may shift from Tehran and Tel Aviv back to the streets of Beirut, Baghdad, and beyond.

Crucially, the war might hasten Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The regime’s conclusion from this conflict could be stark: only a nuclear deterrent can prevent future Israeli or American attacks. If so, the war that aimed to stop a bomb may have, paradoxically, made its pursuit more urgent.

Trump’s masterstroke

Towering above this whole war is the figure of Donald J. Trump. From start to finish, he choreographed the war’s trajectory. It was Trump who insisted on sixty days of negotiations, Trump who greenlit Israel’s pre-emptive strikes with rhetorical and logistical support, Trump who supplied the Massive Ordnance Penetrators that only US bombers could deliver, Trump who continually exhorted Iran to make a deal, and Trump who declared, unilaterally, that the war was over. It is also Donald Trump who holds the details of the ceasefire deal, which will shape Israeli-Iranian relations for the future. The fear, as ever, is that he will prioritise any deal, and peace at any cost, over a good deal.

Israel supplied the firepower, but the United States controlled the rhythm of this war. Trump avoided deploying ground troops yet projected overwhelming force. His administration worked closely with Israel and allowed just enough scope for escalation, then intervened with overwhelming air power at a crucial moment. By bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities directly, Trump secured American strategic impact while maintaining an illusion of Israeli political ownership of the conflict.

Then came the ceasefire. Trump announced it himself, without prior public coordination with either Israel or Iran. His phased plan (first Iran stops firing, then Israel follows 12 hours later) was accepted by both sides. Iran, though unwilling to publicly acknowledge any agreement, eventually ceased its attacks. Israel, facing immense pressure from the White House and having largely achieved its tactical goals, followed suit. Trump presented himself as the essential dealmaker: punisher, protector, and peacemaker.

This dual role has political utility. Trump can now claim to have delivered what his predecessors could not: a rollback of Iran’s nuclear threat without a US ground war, and a ceasefire without appeasement. He avoided entanglement, projected strength, and brought America’s enemies to heel, all without sacrificing American lives. In Trump’s telling, the war ended because he ended it. To a degree, that is true. However, without details on Iranian nuclear assurances and oversight mechanisms in the future, this could end up being a particularly bitter pill for Israel to swallow.

A sobering lesson for Israel

For Israel, the war is both a triumph and a reminder of limitations. Tactical brilliance cannot replace strategic clarity. The IDF carried out one of the most complex long-range air campaigns in its history. Mossad provided superb intelligence. However, Israel did not bring down the Islamic Republic, it did not eliminate the nuclear threat, nor could it end the war on its own terms.

Worse, the war revealed just how reliant Israel is on American support. Bibi has learned the hard way not to go ‘all in’ at the Trump Casino. From munitions to political cover, from diplomatic pressure to strategic restraint, Washington held the final say throughout. Trump’s support was steadfast but also conditional. He backed Israel until he did not. The moment it served US interests to halt the war, Trump declared a ceasefire. Israel obeyed.

This dynamic, where Israel does the fighting and the US calls the tune, raises profound questions. Can Israel afford to act independently on existential matters if it must always seek American permission? What happens if the next White House incumbent is less supportive or more inclined toward accommodation with Iran?

Conclusion

The 12-Day War delivered a powerful blow to Iran’s capabilities and changed the regional equation, at least for now. Israel achieved many of its operational and tactical objectives and inflicted lasting damage on its adversary. Iran survived, adapted, and is already reframing the narrative as a victory. Perhaps the most consequential outcome is this: Donald Trump emerged as the central actor in Middle East geopolitics once more, before stepping back.

His ability to influence the course of war without entrapment, to declare peace unilaterally without negotiation, and to gain political advantage without bloodshed is as unprecedented as it is strategic. Ultimately, this was Israel’s war, Iran’s wound, but Trump’s victory.

The question now is what comes next. Will Iran rebuild its program and seek vengeance through proxies or a nuclear dash? Will Israel resume its shadow war or escalate again if the threat reemerges? Will the United States remain the indispensable broker, or merely continue to position itself as the only adult in the room?

What is certain is this: the conflict did not end, it merely paused. The war is over, for now, but the root cause of the conflict remains.