In a recent statement, U.S. President Donald Trump expressed his commitment to peace, saying, “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars,” shortly after reclaiming the Oval Office. However, achieving this goal is complicated by ongoing conflict dynamics, particularly illustrated by the recent ‘Complete and Total CEASEFIRE’ between Israel and Iran, which faced immediate violations following its declaration.
Time will reveal the durability of this ceasefire and whether it can evolve into a lasting peace. Central to any possibility of sustainable peace is the development of a plausible exit strategy. Combatants will be unwilling to end hostilities without a compelling rationale that argues for peace over continued aggression.
Historically, a notable example was in 1988 when then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran chose to end a protracted war with Iraq. Khomeini, recognizing the shifting realities, acknowledged that the decision to cease fighting was driven by future considerations and input from the nation’s political and military elite.
Currently, the standoff between Israel and Iran carries the potential for a more mutually beneficial equilibrium, despite Trump’s emphasis on “unconditional surrender.”
Continuing hostilities would present significant risks for all parties involved. For Iran, the threat could escalate to the potential assassination of its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or even the potential for regime change. For Israel, military operations against Iran might lead to a precarious war of attrition that would exhaust its resources and hurt its international credibility.
The United States, concerned about being re-engaged in another conflict reminiscent of Iraq, is also wary of escalating tensions.
Amid these precarious circumstances, all three parties—Iran, Israel, and the United States—appear to be exploring pathways that could lead to conflict de-escalation.
In Iran, government officials assert that the Islamic Republic has withstood the combined efforts of both the United States and Israel. They claim that even if nuclear facilities are targeted, Iran’s capabilities would persist due to their enriched materials and indigenous knowledge.
Additionally, Tehran is boasting of its missile attacks on Israeli cities and asserting its retaliatory posture against U.S. assets in the region, highlighting their military resilience.
On the Israeli front, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration is also claiming victory through their extensive military activities, which have included the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and targeted airstrikes on key facilities like Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.
These offensives are said to have severely delayed Iran’s aspirations for nuclear armament, with Israel bolstering its dominance over Iranian airspace through successful military strategies against Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard commanders.
Netanyahu is also likely to leverage these military successes to enhance Israel’s standing internationally and foster expanded relations under the auspices of the Abraham Accords, while managing regional tensions involving Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria.
From Washington’s viewpoint, Trump’s administration is seeing a resurgence in American influence in the region after a period of perceived decline. The military operations against Iranian positions have been framed by Trump as a fulfillment of his doctrine of ‘peace through strength’ as he aims to navigate towards a stable balance of power between Iran and Israel.
Yet the path to a genuine resolution remains problematic. Transitioning from the current status of conflict toward substantial agreements that codify a peaceful state is hindered by numerous challenges. There is a significant lack of trust, and finding a middle ground on vital issues such as Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and limits on its missile capabilities will not be straightforward.
Moreover, additional uncertainties exist regarding undisclosed Iranian nuclear facilities and the potential for ongoing U.S. engagement in these negotiations under Trump’s leadership. The lack of concrete benchmarks and reliance on fluctuating social media communications poses risks of renewed tensions.
Consequently, while negotiating appears to be the least unfavorable option, it presents an opportunity for all involved to declare success and redirect focus towards pressing issues.
Iran and Israel can start to mend the damages incurred from their prolonged conflict, while the U.S. can pivot its focus to disengaging from Middle Eastern entanglements, driving rehabilitation programs in Gaza, and addressing competition concerns with powers like Russia and China.
In the coming days, critical discussions are likely as Netanyahu prepares for a visit to the White House. The situation is charged with anticipation, particularly regarding Trump’s expected insistence on action regarding hostages in Gaza, urging Netanyahu to negotiate a deal that favors both parties.
The Israeli Prime Minister finds himself in a politically sensitive situation. Accepting a proposed ceasefire in Gaza may please Trump but alienate his governing coalition, composed of members who staunchly oppose pausing military actions against Hamas. Conversely, dismissing Trump’s demands could jeopardize crucial U.S. support amid ongoing tensions with Iran.
Navigating these competing interests will require delicate political maneuvering from Netanyahu. A cautious approach should be employed, focusing on a strategy of ‘distrust, but verify’ in dealing with Iran, establishing monitoring protocols, and defining conditions under which previous hostilities could resume if necessary.
Ultimately, negotiations may not be perfect, but they signify hope for a resolution, presenting a way for each party to acknowledge their interests and reduce the potential for conflict moving forward.
image source from：atlanticcouncil
