No peace, just pause: Iran and Israel’s fragile standoff

alarabiya – Following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, many questions remain about the durability of such an arrangement after years of proxy conflict – culminating recently in a direct 12-day aerial exchange of fire.

Following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, many questions remain about the durability of such an arrangement after years of proxy conflict – culminating recently in a direct 12-day aerial exchange of fire.

For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.

The nature of the agreement itself remains shrouded in ambiguity. Trump has yet to disclose the terms accepted by the Iranian and Israeli sides, and it is still unclear whether Washington and Tehran will return to the nuclear negotiation table, talks that had previously collapsed.

At this stage, all involved parties share an interest in halting hostilities, suggesting that the agreement may hold – at least temporarily – until strategic calculations shift. The United States, exhausted by protracted Middle East conflicts, has little appetite for a new drawn-out war. Iran, for its part, appears more open to temporary deals due to its declining capabilities and escalating internal crises. Trump himself faced a divided political base: Between isolationists wary of foreign entanglements and pro-Israel hawks who see American and Israeli interests as inherently aligned.

From Israel’s perspective, continuing the war may have yielded diminishing returns, especially after achieving key strategic goals – such as depleting Iran’s missile stockpiles and weakening the IRGC through targeted strikes – without triggering a full-scale confrontation. Preserving unity with Washington and avoiding embarrassment for the Trump administration were also decisive factors in accepting a truce.

Tehran, meanwhile, has little desire to provoke the US and seeks to end Israeli strikes on its facilities. Continued escalation raises the risk of direct confrontation with Washington – not just Tel Aviv – at a time when Iran is facing severe domestic pressures. With each passing day of war, the risk of regime collapse – or at least conditions that could lead to it – increases.

A ceasefire may reassure regional actors concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, though they are even more alarmed by the prospect of a devastating war to prevent them. Still, Tehran remains cautious about offering nuclear concessions without real guarantees that Israel will not resume its attacks – especially given past episodes where Trump greenlit Israeli strikes despite ongoing negotiations. Since the October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu’s government has embraced a national security doctrine focused on regional dominance rather than peace, making any long-term deal with Iran appear unlikely.

Despite suffering serious blows to its nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities, the Iranian regime remains intact and is seeking opportunities to rebuild its military strength. While this task will be difficult and expensive, it is not impossible, given the Iranian regime’s history of resilience.

The region has just witnessed one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the long-standing tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Israel views its latest strikes as a “relative success,” having neutralized much of Iran’s air defenses and secured near-total aerial freedom over Iranian skies. Iran responded with a barrage of missiles and drones – some of which penetrated Israeli defenses – focusing on dense population centers like Tel Aviv and employing a staggered timing strategy to stretch Israeli response capabilities.

However, Tehran’s retaliation failed to deter further Israeli escalation. Tel Aviv describes its operations as “preemptive strikes,” though their scope and context suggest objectives beyond halting Iran’s nuclear program – possibly even undermining the regime or dismantling its high command structure.

Since the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran has demonstrated political flexibility that often surprises its adversaries. Its leadership follows a strategy of “tactical retreats” that serve broader long-term goals. The regime may concede when cornered but consistently aims to regain lost ground. While Tehran may express readiness for sanctions relief and deals with the West, it still views resistance to Western domination as the cornerstone of its ideology. Any major retreat would be interpreted as a defeat after decades of struggle.

Though frequently floated as a response to Israeli or American aggression, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz remains largely impractical. Such a move would not serve Iran’s interests – it could provoke a harsh international backlash and alienate China, Iran’s largest oil customer. Alternative routes through the UAE and Oman also limit the effectiveness of such a threat. In fact, Iran itself would suffer most from the closure, as the bulk of its imports pass through the strait. Furthermore, much of the strait lies in Omani waters and spans up to 60 miles in width, making complete Iranian control virtually impossible.

Overall, Israel has used successive airstrikes to dismantle Iranian defenses and maintain aerial superiority, effectively forcing Iran to divert its missile arsenal from offensive operations to defense – thus constraining Tehran’s ability to take initiative. In response, Iran has embraced a policy of escalation-for-escalation, calculating that showing weakness would cost it dearly in future negotiations. Tehran also appears to be betting that such escalation will generate internal pressure on Netanyahu’s government and destabilize Israel’s economy through precise, intermittent strikes on populated and strategic areas.

Ultimately, this ceasefire does not signal a strategic shift toward peace. Rather, it reflects a moment of “mutual deterrence” within a fragile balance – one that could shift quickly with any change in power dynamics or political will.

Following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, many questions remain about the durability of such an arrangement after years of proxy conflict – culminating recently in a direct 12-day aerial exchange of fire.

For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.

The nature of the agreement itself remains shrouded in ambiguity. Trump has yet to disclose the terms accepted by the Iranian and Israeli sides, and it is still unclear whether Washington and Tehran will return to the nuclear negotiation table, talks that had previously collapsed.

At this stage, all involved parties share an interest in halting hostilities, suggesting that the agreement may hold – at least temporarily – until strategic calculations shift. The United States, exhausted by protracted Middle East conflicts, has little appetite for a new drawn-out war. Iran, for its part, appears more open to temporary deals due to its declining capabilities and escalating internal crises. Trump himself faced a divided political base: Between isolationists wary of foreign entanglements and pro-Israel hawks who see American and Israeli interests as inherently aligned.

From Israel’s perspective, continuing the war may have yielded diminishing returns, especially after achieving key strategic goals – such as depleting Iran’s missile stockpiles and weakening the IRGC through targeted strikes – without triggering a full-scale confrontation. Preserving unity with Washington and avoiding embarrassment for the Trump administration were also decisive factors in accepting a truce.

Tehran, meanwhile, has little desire to provoke the US and seeks to end Israeli strikes on its facilities. Continued escalation raises the risk of direct confrontation with Washington – not just Tel Aviv – at a time when Iran is facing severe domestic pressures. With each passing day of war, the risk of regime collapse – or at least conditions that could lead to it – increases.

A ceasefire may reassure regional actors concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, though they are even more alarmed by the prospect of a devastating war to prevent them. Still, Tehran remains cautious about offering nuclear concessions without real guarantees that Israel will not resume its attacks – especially given past episodes where Trump greenlit Israeli strikes despite ongoing negotiations. Since the October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu’s government has embraced a national security doctrine focused on regional dominance rather than peace, making any long-term deal with Iran appear unlikely.

Despite suffering serious blows to its nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities, the Iranian regime remains intact and is seeking opportunities to rebuild its military strength. While this task will be difficult and expensive, it is not impossible, given the Iranian regime’s history of resilience.

The region has just witnessed one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the long-standing tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Israel views its latest strikes as a “relative success,” having neutralized much of Iran’s air defenses and secured near-total aerial freedom over Iranian skies. Iran responded with a barrage of missiles and drones – some of which penetrated Israeli defenses – focusing on dense population centers like Tel Aviv and employing a staggered timing strategy to stretch Israeli response capabilities.

However, Tehran’s retaliation failed to deter further Israeli escalation. Tel Aviv describes its operations as “preemptive strikes,” though their scope and context suggest objectives beyond halting Iran’s nuclear program – possibly even undermining the regime or dismantling its high command structure.

Since the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran has demonstrated political flexibility that often surprises its adversaries. Its leadership follows a strategy of “tactical retreats” that serve broader long-term goals. The regime may concede when cornered but consistently aims to regain lost ground. While Tehran may express readiness for sanctions relief and deals with the West, it still views resistance to Western domination as the cornerstone of its ideology. Any major retreat would be interpreted as a defeat after decades of struggle.

Though frequently floated as a response to Israeli or American aggression, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz remains largely impractical. Such a move would not serve Iran’s interests – it could provoke a harsh international backlash and alienate China, Iran’s largest oil customer. Alternative routes through the UAE and Oman also limit the effectiveness of such a threat. In fact, Iran itself would suffer most from the closure, as the bulk of its imports pass through the strait. Furthermore, much of the strait lies in Omani waters and spans up to 60 miles in width, making complete Iranian control virtually impossible.

Overall, Israel has used successive airstrikes to dismantle Iranian defenses and maintain aerial superiority, effectively forcing Iran to divert its missile arsenal from offensive operations to defense – thus constraining Tehran’s ability to take initiative. In response, Iran has embraced a policy of escalation-for-escalation, calculating that showing weakness would cost it dearly in future negotiations. Tehran also appears to be betting that such escalation will generate internal pressure on Netanyahu’s government and destabilize Israel’s economy through precise, intermittent strikes on populated and strategic areas.

Ultimately, this ceasefire does not signal a strategic shift toward peace. Rather, it reflects a moment of “mutual deterrence” within a fragile balance – one that could shift quickly with any change in power dynamics or political will.

Following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, many questions remain about the durability of such an arrangement after years of proxy conflict – culminating recently in a direct 12-day aerial exchange of fire.

For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.

The nature of the agreement itself remains shrouded in ambiguity. Trump has yet to disclose the terms accepted by the Iranian and Israeli sides, and it is still unclear whether Washington and Tehran will return to the nuclear negotiation table, talks that had previously collapsed.

At this stage, all involved parties share an interest in halting hostilities, suggesting that the agreement may hold – at least temporarily – until strategic calculations shift. The United States, exhausted by protracted Middle East conflicts, has little appetite for a new drawn-out war. Iran, for its part, appears more open to temporary deals due to its declining capabilities and escalating internal crises. Trump himself faced a divided political base: Between isolationists wary of foreign entanglements and pro-Israel hawks who see American and Israeli interests as inherently aligned.

From Israel’s perspective, continuing the war may have yielded diminishing returns, especially after achieving key strategic goals – such as depleting Iran’s missile stockpiles and weakening the IRGC through targeted strikes – without triggering a full-scale confrontation. Preserving unity with Washington and avoiding embarrassment for the Trump administration were also decisive factors in accepting a truce.

Tehran, meanwhile, has little desire to provoke the US and seeks to end Israeli strikes on its facilities. Continued escalation raises the risk of direct confrontation with Washington – not just Tel Aviv – at a time when Iran is facing severe domestic pressures. With each passing day of war, the risk of regime collapse – or at least conditions that could lead to it – increases.

A ceasefire may reassure regional actors concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, though they are even more alarmed by the prospect of a devastating war to prevent them. Still, Tehran remains cautious about offering nuclear concessions without real guarantees that Israel will not resume its attacks – especially given past episodes where Trump greenlit Israeli strikes despite ongoing negotiations. Since the October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu’s government has embraced a national security doctrine focused on regional dominance rather than peace, making any long-term deal with Iran appear unlikely.

Despite suffering serious blows to its nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities, the Iranian regime remains intact and is seeking opportunities to rebuild its military strength. While this task will be difficult and expensive, it is not impossible, given the Iranian regime’s history of resilience.

The region has just witnessed one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the long-standing tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Israel views its latest strikes as a “relative success,” having neutralized much of Iran’s air defenses and secured near-total aerial freedom over Iranian skies. Iran responded with a barrage of missiles and drones – some of which penetrated Israeli defenses – focusing on dense population centers like Tel Aviv and employing a staggered timing strategy to stretch Israeli response capabilities.

However, Tehran’s retaliation failed to deter further Israeli escalation. Tel Aviv describes its operations as “preemptive strikes,” though their scope and context suggest objectives beyond halting Iran’s nuclear program – possibly even undermining the regime or dismantling its high command structure.

Since the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran has demonstrated political flexibility that often surprises its adversaries. Its leadership follows a strategy of “tactical retreats” that serve broader long-term goals. The regime may concede when cornered but consistently aims to regain lost ground. While Tehran may express readiness for sanctions relief and deals with the West, it still views resistance to Western domination as the cornerstone of its ideology. Any major retreat would be interpreted as a defeat after decades of struggle.

Though frequently floated as a response to Israeli or American aggression, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz remains largely impractical. Such a move would not serve Iran’s interests – it could provoke a harsh international backlash and alienate China, Iran’s largest oil customer. Alternative routes through the UAE and Oman also limit the effectiveness of such a threat. In fact, Iran itself would suffer most from the closure, as the bulk of its imports pass through the strait. Furthermore, much of the strait lies in Omani waters and spans up to 60 miles in width, making complete Iranian control virtually impossible.

Overall, Israel has used successive airstrikes to dismantle Iranian defenses and maintain aerial superiority, effectively forcing Iran to divert its missile arsenal from offensive operations to defense – thus constraining Tehran’s ability to take initiative. In response, Iran has embraced a policy of escalation-for-escalation, calculating that showing weakness would cost it dearly in future negotiations. Tehran also appears to be betting that such escalation will generate internal pressure on Netanyahu’s government and destabilize Israel’s economy through precise, intermittent strikes on populated and strategic areas.

Ultimately, this ceasefire does not signal a strategic shift toward peace. Rather, it reflects a moment of “mutual deterrence” within a fragile balance – one that could shift quickly with any change in power dynamics or political will.