Has Iran ceased to be the Iran it had been the day before yesterday?
My assessment might be premature. Negotiations have yet to begin and American aircraft carriers have not returned to their bases; and this is a two-week ceasefire. Even so, Iran has probably fundamentally changed for two main reasons: war and peace.
The ceasefire announced by Donald Trump at dawn yesterday is the result of a change in Iran’s leadership, which will lead to shifts in Iran’s state policy.
The war accelerated a trajectory that had preceded it, burning through phases and pushing Tehran toward the change Trump repeatedly spoke of. He was not mistaken when he said that Iran now has a new regime after the former leadership had been eliminated: a list of generals, institutional leaders, and even, the man at the top, the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself.
Over the past 38 days, Iran received blows it had not received in 38 years- that is, since the end of its war with Iraq.
This battle, now paused, was different for Iran. It was not a struggle for influence in Syria or Lebanon but an existential war. The regime was fighting for survival. Like a drowning man, it clung even to slim anything it could: forcing Gulf states to intervene to stop the war and pushing Hezbollah into a suicidal operation.
The shift began with the killing of the strategic architect and commander of Iran’s regional forces, Qassem Soleimani, during Trump’s first presidency. That was the first bullet. It was followed by a series of events and wars that destabilized the regime.
The war has stopped, but it has not ended. It awaits a document signed by both sides and the announcement of its terms—terms that will mark the end of Iran’s military project and the conclusion of a half-century conflict.
The ceasefire crowned undisclosed communications that had reportedly been authorized by Trump and entrusted to his vice president, J.D. Vance as American forces were striking targets inside Iran. These efforts aimed at more than just ending the war. In the absence of a Supreme Leader (Mojtaba Khamenei) the Iranian leadership sought guarantees that the regime would survive during the strategic transition Trump declared at the start of the war by changing the regime’s policies so the regime itself would not be toppled by a coup or popular uprising.
Half of the ten demands presented by Tehran focus on one issue: protecting the regime. First among them is an explicit condition guaranteeing that no new war will be launched against Iran, that the war be definitively ended (not merely paused), that all sanctions be lifted, and that fighting against its allies cease.
Tehran, perhaps rightly, believes that regime change is the plan, and it is seeking every guarantee to prevent that eventuality.
Setting aside the propaganda and victory narratives, Tehran has been targeted by two direct wars in less than a year. Washington’s objective is both military and political victory, closing the fifty-year chapter of what it calls the “axis of evil” by changing the regime’s behavior if not the regime itself. The temporary agreement followed rapid contacts culminating in the success of Pakistan’s mediation efforts just moments before Trump’s planned large-scale attack. He spoke of major change, and of the United States playing a central role inside Iran through reconstruction, and the Iranians offered to stop the war, reflecting the recent shift in Tehran.
There is still enough ammunition for a few more weeks should fighting resume, but the balance of power was decided early on. This may not be reflected in Tehran’s declarations of “victory”, given the sensitivity of its domestic standing. Iranians have not yet buried their late leader, nor have they seen or heard from their new leader. If he does not appear publicly, doubts about his capability will only grow stronger.
The Iranians have exhausted every option. Before the war, the delegation led by Minister Abbas Araghchi entered negotiations in Geneva with three bargaining chips: its nuclear program, its ballistic capabilities, and its regional proxies.
When negotiations failed and war quickly began, it lost all three, replacing them with two new bargaining tools. It halted 20 percent of the world’s oil by closing the Strait of Hormuz and targeted Arab Gulf states.
Nearly a month on, the strikes on Iran have not stopped.
The last card Iran has to play is something like a fig leaf. The negotiations are meant to allow for an empty declaration of “victory” that conceals its surrender. The central obstacle remains the demand for guarantees in return for change.
Tehran’s need for a guarantor will remain key. It cannot trust the Trump administration and believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to resume fighting until the situation changes inside Iran. Iranian officials have already said that Hamas was deceived in ceasefire negotiations, handing over all hostages based on Trump’s promises, after which Israel took two-thirds of Gaza.
This is a task for major powers. China could serve as a guarantor. It too has an interest in engaging with this strategic shift to prevent Iran from going from a nuisance to the United States to a base for confronting Beijing in the future.
Is Iran becoming a new Venezuela? To some extent, yes. There is an agreement on the need for change.
