The U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites this past weekend don’t seem to have launched a new American forever war, as some critics feared they would. Instead, they may have helped conclude, if inconclusively, a brief hot war between Iran and Israel.
Iran retaliated against the United States on Monday in a manner that has become typical by now: Before targeting a U.S. base in Qatar, Tehran gave enough advance notice to assure that no one was hurt. Shortly afterward, President Donald Trump made a statement thanking Iran for the warning—and then announced a cease-fire between Iran and Israel. “God Bless You Both!” Trump proclaimed on Truth Social to the two antagonists, just a day after having publicly considered pursuing regime change in Tehran.
This was not, of course, the end of the story. Iran and Israel fired ferociously at each other in the final few hours before the cease-fire was to take hold. The timing of that cease-fire was the source of some confusion, because there had been no formal agreement between Iran and Israel, just a general understanding. Trump scolded Israel for its attacks on Iran and then complained that the two countries don’t “know what the fuck they’re doing.”
Both Iran and Israel have come away with some small victories, but the big ones have eluded them. Israel once again demonstrated the jaw-dropping extent of its intelligence penetration of Iran, which allowed it to find and kill several high-ranking military leaders and nuclear scientists. But even with the American participation it long coveted, Israel failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program fully or take away its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Hundreds of Israeli civilians were injured in Iranian attacks, many homes were destroyed, and a few dozen civilians were killed, including five who perished in an Iranian attack on Beersheba minutes before the cease-fire took effect.
For its part, Iran’s regime proved resilient, even at the toughest hour of its history. Fantasies about the strikes igniting a popular uprising that would overthrow the regime proved empty. But the Islamic Republic was badly battered and humiliated. It lost control of its airspace, such that even its diplomats could travel only with permission from Israel. And the war’s shock to the Iranian system could still help spell doom for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The 86-year-old leader, still apparently being kept out of public view, came across as inept. That the war happened at all is a testament to the failure of his policies. Khamenei has kept the chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” going for decades. But when Iran finally got into a direct confrontation with Israel, most of the dying was done by Iranian civilians. In the past two weeks, Iranian society showed a remarkable degree of social solidarity. This should not be confused with political support for the regime. On the contrary, many Iranians cursed the regime that had gotten them into this conflict.
A factional battle continues to rage within the Iranian political elite. Ever since 2002, when the Iranian nuclear program was revealed to the world, some elements inside the regime have sought to solve the resulting crisis through normalization with the West and integration with the global economy. These factions understand that getting sanctions lifted means compromising on the country’s nuclear program, and that improving relations with the West requires ending the hostile rhetoric and support for anti-Israeli militias. The pragmatists have reason to hope that the Israeli and American bombardment will ultimately strengthen their position by having shown the futility and destructiveness of Khamenei’s antagonism.
But other parts of the Islamic Republic remain committed to rejectionism. Upon attacking the U.S. base in Qatar, the Iranian armed forces issued a statement declaring the country’s goals to be the expulsion of American forces from the region and the “eradication of the cancerous tumor of Zion.” Such extreme slogans do not match the caution of Iran’s military actions. But the rhetorical hostility is deeply ingrained in the regime. For years, Iran threatened America and Israel with destruction but avoided getting into a direct war with either of them. Now it has experienced a fight with these enemies and may be forced to rethink its belligerent posture.
That hasn’t happened yet for some Iranian hard-liners, who are attacking the country’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, for accepting a cease-fire. “Iran doesn’t need a ceasefire but to continue the resistance until it eradicates the Zionist regime,” Soodeh Najafi, a Tehran city councilor, wrote on X. “Israel’s defeat is definite and real peace will only come from its disappearance.”
Other hard-liners are pushing Iran to stop cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Doing so would suggest that Tehran was pursuing a nuclear-weapons program in earnest. Saeed Jalili, a former national security adviser, has called on Iran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would amount to the same thing. Hard-liners dominate the Parliament and could pass a bill with that aim.
The Iranian Parliament remains a marginal institution, and extremists such as Najafi and Jalili have limited influence on Iranian policy for the moment. But they do carry special weight within the security apparatus, and they could encourage it to lash out at ordinary Iranians. Hard-liners are already threatening “traitors,” meaning anyone critical of the regime, with punishment. Many Iranians now fear that the regime will crack down on them to show its strength and ensure its stability after the Israeli and American attacks.
If the cease-fire holds, however, the U.S. and Israel may seek to bring a weakened Iran back into talks about imposing limits on its nuclear program. Iran will need to decide what sort of diplomacy to pursue, given the damage its nuclear sites have suffered. Israel has shown that it can secure dominion over Iranian skies; Trump has shown that he won’t hesitate to use American force on Iranian soil. As Iran decides on its next move, it will be painfully aware of what the alternatives to negotiations can be.
The post A Cease-Fire Without a Conclusion appeared first on The Atlantic.
