Washington dc: The military confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran in recent weeks has sharply changed the security environment in the region and has shaped a new phase of tension in the Middle East. Mutual strikes, large-scale bombardments, and the involvement of various actors have expanded the geography of the conflict. Although the resulting ceasefire has created relative calm, questions remain open regarding the nature of the complex situation in the region and its future trajectory. In the current conditions, assessing the events from both military and political perspectives, as well as conducting a comparative analysis of the positions of the main parties, is of particular importance.
According to Azeri-Press News Agency, Paolo von Schirach, President of the Global Policy Institute and Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University (BAU) in Washington DC, stated that today in the Middle East, a new chapter seems to have opened in a very difficult and almost catastrophic conflict. He explained that the conflict began with a large-scale bombing campaign carried out in coordination by the Israeli and US Air Forces.
The political analyst noted that the initial objective appeared to be the 'decapitation' of the Iranian regime, targeting the elimination of its leadership. The operation resulted in the death of Iran's Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei and approximately 40-50 high-ranking officials. Despite these significant losses, the anticipated regime collapse did not occur, showcasing the capabilities of US and Israeli intelligence in locating Iran's leadership.
The expert also highlighted the systematic destruction of Iran's military infrastructure, prompting Iran to retaliate with missile and drone strikes on Gulf countries hosting US military bases, expanding the conflict's geography. He emphasized the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the implications of the ceasefire, particularly in light of US threats to target Iran's critical infrastructure.
Paolo von Schirach pointed out the uncertainty surrounding future agreements, especially regarding the Strait of Hormuz, which could further complicate the situation if Iran insists on controlling passage and charging fees. He noted the involvement of Gulf countries due to their geographical and military ties with the United States and the strategic importance of military facilities in Qatar and Bahrain.
The sustainability of the ceasefire and the possibility of achieving long-term peace remain uncertain due to the tense relations between the United States and Iran. Despite the ceasefire being a positive development compared to the escalation promised by Donald Trump, real peace is still far from guaranteed.
Iranian political analyst Peiman Salehi highlighted a shift in societal dynamics within Iran over the past 40 days. He observed a sense of solidarity among different societal segments, prioritizing national defense over internal divisions. This unity stems from the public's perception of external threats overshadowing internal differences.
Salehi noted that during negotiations with Western countries, external attacks significantly impacted public opinion, shifting focus from internal issues to national concerns. He acknowledged the support for national defense does not equate to agreement with domestic policies but rather a defensive reaction to external threats.
Concerns within Iranian society revolve around the ceasefire's timing and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under its previous regime, potentially weakening Iran's leverage. Despite Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's remarks on imposing fees, societal doubts persist. Salehi warned of the ceasefire's sustainability, given past experiences and recent regional events, particularly Israel's attacks on Lebanon.
The prevailing view in Iranian society is cautious realism, with expectations that only a portion of Iran's proposed conditions will be fulfilled. The ceasefire is seen as a temporary phase dependent on achieving real results in the near future.
Israeli political analyst Yuri Bocharov assessed the ceasefire as a temporary stabilizing measure rather than a comprehensive resolution of the region's deep-rooted conflicts. He stressed the importance of analyzing the situation within a broader framework, considering the interests of external actors.
Bocharov explained that the ceasefire reflects differing priorities: the United States aims to maintain domestic stability and reduce foreign military involvement, while Israel focuses on national security and strategic deterrence. Middle Eastern countries prioritize economic stability and secure transit routes, with external actors seeking to minimize global market risks.
Within Israel, the ceasefire is met with caution and criticism, as objectives like limiting Iran's nuclear program and reducing ballistic missile threats remain unfulfilled. Bocharov highlighted ongoing military tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon, emphasizing the region's volatility and unpredictability.
In conclusion, the ceasefire should be viewed as a temporary pause, shaped by political factors, rather than a sustainable settlement. The region's volatility and rapid developments make forecasts uncertain.
The three expert perspectives indicate that the current ceasefire is not a resolution but a stage in the ongoing crisis. Paolo von Schirach emphasized the military campaign's scale and strategic challenges, including control over the Strait of Hormuz. Peiman Salehi highlighted Iran's societal solidarity and concerns over the ceasefire's reliability. Yuri Bocharov assessed the ceasefire within Israel's security framework, noting unresolved issues and the region's economic sensitivity.
Overall, the ceasefire provides relative calm but is not a sustainable peace formula. Deep mistrust, unresolved contradictions, and regional tensions persist. The agreement should be viewed as a temporary phase influencing future developments.