A ceasefire has been established in what President Donald Trump has termed the ‘Twelve-Day War’ between Israel and Iran, prompting discussions about the underlying motivations driving both parties to reach this agreement.
For the United States, the rationale for involvement is relatively clear. Washington perceived Israel’s military actions as a means to strengthen its bargaining power against Tehran.
Had Israel succeeded, Iran would be compelled to dismantle its nuclear program comprehensively, renounce its right to enrich uranium as guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), terminate its ballistic missile program, and sever connections with armed movements aligned with the ‘axis of resistance’ in future negotiations dictated by the US.
The US objectives became more evident following its bombing of three Iranian nuclear installations over the weekend, coupled with threats of a broader military campaign if Tehran retaliated.
While Trump once suggested that regime change in Tehran might be a desirable goal, he never formally committed to this nor directed military action towards it.
Upon the cessation of hostilities, Trump declared victory, claiming the complete destruction of the three targeted nuclear sites and asserting that Iran’s nuclear ambitions had been eradicated.
However, numerous experts criticized Trump’s assertions, arguing that Iran had taken steps to protect its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and had removed critical equipment before the US strikes.
Moreover, Iran retains the expertise necessary to rebuild its program, as military intervention has shown to only delay—not eliminate—nuclear ambitions without a ground occupation.
The US appeared to recognize that Israel’s military campaign against Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities had reached a feasible limit.
In this context, regime change emerged as a more sensible outcome.
Iran’s reaction to the US airstrikes involved a largely symbolic attack on the US al-Udaid air base in Qatar, which did not result in any casualties.
This allowed Trump to categorize these retaliations as ineffective gestures, yet they also highlighted the risk of escalating regional conflict.
If Iran felt sufficiently threatened, it demonstrated its willingness to broaden the conflict, raising concerns in Washington.
The American involvement, combined with the bipartisan tumult generated within the Republican party, indicated a certain level of discontent.
Diverse factions emerged regarding the war; some called for withdrawal, while others sought deeper military commitment.
Caught in the middle, Trump may have realized he was manipulated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that staying entrenched in conflict could lead to dire political repercussions at home.
Thus, Washington initiated the ceasefire.
On the part of Iran, the reasoning for entering into a ceasefire was simpler.
Tehran consistently referred to Israel’s military actions as acts of aggression and called for an immediate end to hostilities.
Despite enduring substantial damage, Iran’s nuclear program was largely intact, and its missile capabilities remained potent.
As the conflict progressed, Tehran demonstrated the effectiveness of its retaliatory strikes, amidst noticeable failures in US-Israeli anti-missile defenses.
Iran appeared more than willing to sustain a lengthy conflict, but the prospect of broader ramifications made prolonged hostility unappealing.
Israel’s attacks would only escalate, increasing the damage incurred, and there was a real risk of the US becoming more heavily involved if Iran rejected a ceasefire proposal requiring its capitulation.
Iran’s ability to further escalate the conflict without damaging its relationships—with which it nurtured over recent years—also played a critical role in its decision-making.
In response to the ceasefire brought forth by the US, Iran recognized it as an acceptable exit strategy—if it was genuine and not a ruse.
Israel’s position, however, seemed more complex.
Significantly, Netanyahu failed to secure an American commitment to a decisive military engagement with Iran.
The Israeli military campaign did not fulfill its ambitious objectives, which included dismantling Iran’s nuclear program or instigating regime change.
Iran’s capability to continue launching missile strikes until the ceasefire underscores that Israel did not succeed in sufficiently deterring its adversary.
Although Israel inflicted grave damage on Iran’s military and intelligence infrastructure, resulting in numerous fatalities among leaders and key personnel, these losses are likely to be mitigated by replacements.
Israel’s intelligence operations did reveal the extent of its penetration into Iranian affairs.
Israeli aspirations for a prolonged military campaign appear to have been curtailed by a phone call from Washington indicating a ceasefire instead of an escalation.
The discontent expressed among Israel’s supporters indicates a profound disappointment with this outcome.
Looking ahead, though neither Israel nor Iran formally accepted the ceasefire agreement, both seem willing to endorse a temporary arrangement.
Iran has asserted that it does not consider it a formal agreement, stating that it will reciprocate if Israel ceases its attacks.
For its part, Israel may seek to replicate earlier strategies established in Lebanon—a ceasefire that applies solely to its adversary while allowing Israel to maintain its military actions with US endorsement.
However, the effectiveness of this approach in relation to Iran remains uncertain.
The future coping mechanisms of Iran regarding further acts of sabotage perpetrated by Israeli agents, which may not stem from aerial strikes, seem less clear.
As Israel engages in a renewed campaign in Lebanon, focusing on weakening Hezbollah while promoting its disarmament by the Lebanese state, it reflects an ingrained militaristic approach.
Sustainable ceasefires typically require political arrangements.
This draws attention back to US-Iranian negotiations, which were shattered when Trump renounced the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement mere weeks ago in favor of military aggression.
Given that the crisis was instigated by US demands for Iran to renounce its NPT guaranteed rights to uranium enrichment for civilian purposes, Iran is unlikely to negotiate unless these stipulations are rescinded, and its rights acknowledged.
Additionally, Iran is expected to resist discussions about its ballistic missile program or regional relations.
Conceding to these would indicate that Israel had effectively coerced Iran into submission.
An ongoing open question revolves around Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
In a remarkably short span of 12 days, Israel and the US have effectively undermined the NPT and the long-standing nuclear regulatory frameworks.
Will Iran consider expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors or even exiting the NPT altogether, mirroring Israel’s course while covertly pursuing nuclear armament?
The Iranian leadership now faces mounting internal pressure, both from its ranks and the broader Iranian society, to make pivotal decisions regarding its nuclear strategy.
This compels consideration that it may no longer be pragmatic for Iran to leverage its nuclear threshold status in negotiations, as opposed to seeking a direct pathway toward establishing a deterrent.
image source from：middleeasteye
