Will the ceasefire with Iran bring lasting peace?

A ceasefire reached at a stage when Trump has been threatening to destroy Iranian civilization will not easily turn into a lasting peace agreement. Iran’s move to corner Trump by playing the Hormuz card was effective in getting to this stage. If the claims that the Pentagon’s operation to rescue an American pilot was actually a failed mission to seize enriched uranium are true, then Trump’s realization that he cannot get what he wants through military action also played a role. The United States and Israel, which have significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program and missile capacity, failed to secure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz or the seizure of enriched uranium. In this situation, Trump launched a new escalation effort to force Iran to the negotiating table in order to achieve these goals through diplomacy. The ceasefire agreement, which is to be established after Iran responds to Washington’s 15-item list with its own 10-item list, has perhaps prevented a new escalation period that could go as far as the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Debates on whether the ceasefire terms include Israel’s attacks on Lebanon indicate from the very first day that the ceasefire may not be permanent. News such as Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz again also shows how bumpy the negotiation process will be. Freezing the military phase of the war and moving to a negotiation phase is positive both for preventing further chaos in the region and for avoiding an even worse crisis in the global economy. However, Israel’s statements that it will continue its operations to achieve its goals show that it wants to put pressure on the negotiation process. Trump’s acceptance of the ceasefire agreement without consulting Israel also indicates that he has realized how unrealistic the suggestions of his most influential partner in entering the war—that “this will be easy”—truly are. Although Trump took Israel’s suggestions into account when entering the war, in seeking an exit from the war he is forcing Israel into the process and sending the message “I am the real boss.”

Time for Confession?

Although Trump’s desire to end the Iran war before the November elections is a matter of rational political calculation, Israel’s pressure to continue the war has long been causing discomfort in Washington. The fact that many influential media figures who normally support Trump have been expressing harsh reactions to Israel has strengthened the argument that Trump was dragged into this war. However, Trump’s threat to “destroy Iranian civilization” was an unacceptable discourse even for them. Figures like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, who have openly taken a stance against Trump, have been complaining both about Trump’s irrational rhetoric and about America doing Israel’s “dirty work” in the region. This approach, ironically, provided an argument that opened the door for Trump to move toward negotiations by saying that Israel was the real culprit behind the war.

The news analysis published in the New York Times on April 7, which explains how the decision to go to war with Iran was made, provides critical details about Israel’s role while also showing that Trump’s cabinet members are trying to distance themselves from the war decision. The article, published at a stage when Trump was looking for a way out amid the uproar over his threat to destroy Iranian civilization, reports that the war seriously coming onto the agenda was the result of Netanyahu’s efforts. According to the article, which states that the war decision materialized with Netanyahu’s most recent White House visit, only Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth among Trump administration officials supported military intervention. The article, which portrays the decision as ultimately Trump’s, reports that officials warned about the Strait of Hormuz and argued that, contrary to Israel’s claims, regime change was not possible.

While highlighting familiar criticisms such as the lack of a clear strategy, failure to fully achieve objectives, and an unclear exit strategy, the article emphasizes Trump’s final decision to prefer action over remaining passive. However, the article’s critical point is that deep distrust prevails among national security officials regarding the strategic picture presented by Israel and the goals it claims are achievable. It paints a picture where, despite Israel’s pursuit of maximalist and unrealistic goals, the Trump administration entered the war to achieve more reasonable objectives. The information conveyed by administration officials, almost to lay the groundwork for a confession effort, focuses on themes such as Trump being aware of the risks from the start and not falling for Israel’s arguments. In this way, an attempt is made to send the message to the American public that the Trump administration entered the war with a much more realistic stance to achieve its own chosen goals, not Israel’s.

Exit Strategy

Although Trump’s simultaneous declaration of victory from the very first days and his statement that the war could last long stood out as a deep contradiction, it was clear that this was an effort to keep his options open. Unable to get what he wanted on Hormuz and uranium, and also unable to bring NATO into the war as he wished, Trump tried to base his exit strategy on further escalation. Receiving the message from Iran—which responded to the escalation strategy with the same strategy—that it would not surrender easily, Trump kept his maneuvering room wide through rhetoric such as that America had already achieved its goals and that the Strait of Hormuz was someone else’s problem. The spike in oil prices to $140 per barrel increased economic pressure and led to Trump’s “destroy civilization” threat.

It is clear that the pressure on Iran from countries negatively affected by oil supply and price fluctuations—perhaps even more than by Trump’s threats—has been effective. The ceasefire, which provided Trump with a significant way out ahead of his visit to China, will provide short-term relief to global markets, but many obstacles remain to a lasting peace agreement. Trump, who listened to Israel on going to war as in Gaza but left it out of the negotiation process, may follow a similar strategy against Iran. If he cannot or does not want to apply the necessary pressure on Israel and keep it under control, achieving lasting peace will not be possible.