True to form, US President Donald Trump painted a dramatic picture of his country’s strikes on Iran. He announced that the war had ended and attacked anyone seeking to downplay its impact, particularly certain American media outlets that claimed the strike had only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months, not years.
Trump is not the kind of person to accept any characterization of him that is short of spectacular. He has relentlessly attacked journalists who suggest the strike’s results are overblown. He revisited this question at the NATO summit yesterday, drawing a bold comparison between his actions and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Just as those bombings had ended that war, he said, the strike on Iran would end this one.
Following the US strike and Iran’s symbolic retaliation, Trump swiftly pushed for a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, offering little clarity in the way of enforcement mechanisms and without any formal agreement having been signed. In any case, Trump threw his weight behind the ceasefire. He will not tolerate actions to undercut it, both because he wants to emerge victorious from this military intervention and because he seeks to contain discontent in his base. Some of Trump’s supporters had voiced their opposition to dragging the US into a conflict. They stressed that American soldiers should not fight on Israel’s behalf, reminding him of his campaign promise to be a “president of peace” who would not initiate forever wars.
That explains why Trump was visibly furious when reporters asked about violations of the ceasefire early on. He publicly called on Israel to recall the fighter jets it had sent to strike Iran. These violations suggest Netanyahu may have had reservations about the speed at which the ceasefire went into effect; he sought to sabotage the deal, but the angry messages from Washington compelled him to hold back.
Trump wants to show the world that his “strongman strategy” has succeeded: first, in delivering a strong blow to Iran’s nuclear program; second, in maintaining the ceasefire and “ending” the war; and in achieving the third objective he is now pursuing, bringing Iran back to the negotiating table, but this time from a weaker position.
This war had many secrets, ploys, and arrangements, some of which are now beginning to surface. From the course of events, it has become clear that Trump gave Israel the green light to strike Iran on June 13, using misdirection to surprise Iran. On the tenth day of the war, the US intervened with Operation Midnight Hammer, which was followed by symbolic and choreographed Iranian retaliation against key American bases in the region that failed to cause any significant damage. In a surreal twist, Trump even thanked Iran for its prior warning and for allowing him to evacuate it and prepare US missile defenses.
That wasn’t the only warning. According to reports, the US had also alerted Iran of its strike in advance, giving the latter a chance to relocate equipment and uranium from the Fordow facility to other locations. As for regime change, that turned out to be nothing more than a pressure tactic: Trump is now saying it would create chaos, and no one wants that.
With the ceasefire in place, each side can now claim victory, regardless of the price it paid.
Trump will say that his strategy succeeded, reinforcing the “strongman” image he cherishes. He’ll also present himself as a president of peace after having ended this war and saved the region, and after having previously stopped the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. In his view, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Netanyahu, for his part, will also claim to have achieved his goals: he “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear capabilities and set them back by years, diminished Iran’s missile capacities by depleting their stockpile and targeting production facilities, assassinated a number of Iranian nuclear scientists, killed military leaders and officials, and destroyed military installations.
Iran, meanwhile, can say that despite the losses, it stood firm and showed that it could retaliate and inflict substantial material, economic, human, and strategic damage, undermining Israel’s deterrence. Iran also tested its weapons, including new missiles and drones, on a real battlefield, and its missiles managed to bypass Israeli defense systems on multiple occasions.
Our region, however, is the true loser. These wars waged over its head come at the expense of its stability. Amid all of this upheaval, the unprecedented suffering in Gaza has been forgotten, and so has the war in Sudan and others like it.
What next?
Concluding a truce may have been the easy part. The real challenge now is to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis through negotiations. Trump could make maximalist demands, and Iran would refuse his offer, meaning that this ceasefire might be nothing more than a brief pause before a larger war erupts. Alternatively, a compromise might be reached. They could find some middle ground somewhere between Washington’s demand that enrichment cease entirely, and Tehran’s insistence on its right to enrich uranium, even at just 3%.
The bargaining will resume, now that each side has drawn its “red lines” and defined its vision of “victory” in this war of balancing acts, surprises, and tacit understandings... all of which are part of a broader effort to reshape the region.
