Photo by Craig Melville on Unsplash
After a period of intense global anxiety and escalating tensions, a remarkable announcement emerged that Iran and Israel have officially agreed to a peace deal by embracing a ceasefire planned by the US President Donald Trump. This significant development follows an unrestrained 12-hour stretch that had push the Middle East to the height of a broader regional conflict. The immediate aftermath sees all three primary actors – Israel, Iran, and the United States asserting their own version of victory in this sudden termination of hostilities.
The Regional Outbreak: A Near Miss for Widespread Conflict
The events leading up to this peace accord paint a vivid picture of a region on the brink of chaos. On Monday night, fears of a full-scale regional war intensified dramatically. Qatar, a crucial strategic location, shortly had shut down its airspace. This move was swiftly followed by a retaliatory attack from Iran on the Al Udeid air base, situated near Doha, Qatar. Iran's strike was a direct response to American assaults on three of its nuclear facilities over the earlier weekend. The chain reaction of concern was intense, with neighbouring nations such as Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE also closing their airspaces which was signalling a widespread apprehension that the Israel-Iran conflict was on the verge of spiralling out of control.
However, the tide turned after Iran's missile attack concluded. President Trump, had been utilising his Truth Social platform that declared a ceasefire between Iran and Israel by stating it would be implemented within the next 24 hours. This swift announcement marked a critical turning point by pulling the region back from the brink of what many feared would be an inclusive of fire.
Claiming Victory: Self-Congratulation is this a new way of global geopolitics?
With the ceasefire now finally in effect, a fascinating narrative has emerged with each key player asserting their strategic advantage and ultimate victory in this 12-day standoff.
From Jerusalem, the narrative is one of strategic success, specifically in neutralising perceived threats. According to the latest communiqué from Prime Minister Netanyahu's office, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) effectively "controlled Tehran's skies" during their operations which were explicitly aimed at eliminating the threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic weapons capabilities.
Perhaps Israel's most significant achievement during this period, as articulated by their leadership was the direct involvement of the United States in the conflict, ending in American strikes against Iran. This has been a long-standing objective for Netanyahu, one he has reportedly pursued for three decades. Interestingly, just days before the US conducted its strikes, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio had publicly stated that Israel was acting "unilaterally" and that the US was not participating in what was dubbed "Operation Rising Lion." Yet, a week later, the US, under President Trump's direction, had demonstrated its unwavering commitment to standing by Israel.
Another notable gain for Israel, from its perspective, has been the diversion of international attention away from the ongoing and deeply troubling situation in the Gaza Strip. Reports indicate that every day, at least 30 individuals have been killed near aid distribution sites in Gaza while awaiting essential food and supplies. The intensity of the Iran-Israel conflict and the subsequent peace deal have undeniably shifted global focus by providing Israel with a degree of forgiveness from the scrutiny of its actions in Gaza.
The United States and Trump: Architects of 'World Peace'?
Across the Atlantic, the United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump has positioned itself as the decisive force that brought stability to a volatile region. Initially, the US maintained a stance of non-involvement in Israel's attacks on Iran. However, this changed when, as the narrative goes, Washington "ran out of patience" and intervened, thereby raising the stakes in the Middle East to unprecedented levels.
The US employed a strategic "decoy" manoeuvre, seemingly attempting to mislead the world into anticipating an attack by stationing B-2 bombers in Guam. Simultaneously, it covertly executed strikes within Iran. In a subsequent White House address, Trump characterised Iran as the "Middle East bully," while simultaneously claiming credit for working towards peace. He issued a stern warning that any future attacks by Iran would be met with responses that would be "far greater and a lot easier."
President Trump also asserted that the US strikes inflicted significant damage on Iranian nuclear sites in particularly the Fordow nuclear plant. However, these claims have been met with scepticism from experts who suggest that Iran may have cleverly outmanoeuvred Washington, potentially safeguarding its crucial nuclear supplies.
Despite the self-congratulatory tone, Trump faced immediate domestic backlash following the strikes. He was confronted with widespread protests, online criticism, and a group of senators preparing to initiate impeachment proceedings by citing his actions as "unconstitutional" and dangerously destabilising to global geopolitics.
Consequently, even after Iran launched its retaliatory attack on US military bases in Qatar and Iraq, the US found itself in a position where it could not risk further escalation of the conflict. It was subsequently revealed that Iran had forewarned Qatar of its impending strikes, which facilitated the necessary airspace closures and the evacuation of American military personnel from the base.
Therefore, the attack on the Al Udeid air base ultimately served as a mutually beneficial outcome for both America and Iran. For Iran, it was an opportunity to demonstrate its military capabilities and resolve. For the US, despite the attack, there were no American casualties due to the "early notice" provided by Tehran. This unique scenario paved the way for Trump to assume the role of the "peacemaker," ending in the announcement of the ceasefire.
The Future of Peace: A Fragile Accord
While the immediate crisis has been averted, the underlying tensions and strategic ambitions of all parties remain. The "peace deal" appears to be a temporary end of hostilities rather than a fundamental resolution of deep-seated conflicts. The claims of victory by each player highlight the complex and often self-serving narratives that will undoubtedly shape the future dynamics of this unstable region. The question remains to be there that how long will this uneasy ceasefire hold, and what will be the next chapter in the long-standing rivalry between these powerful actors? Only time will tell if this agreement represents a genuine step towards lasting peace or merely a pause before the next unavoidable escalation.
. . .
References: