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.
From military strikes to ceasefire: the strategic landscape of the confrontation
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, told APA that today in the Middle East, a new chapter seems to have opened in a very difficult and almost catastrophic conflict. He said that the conflict began with a large-scale bombing campaign carried out in coordination by the Israeli and US Air Forces.
According to the political analyst, in the initial stage it appeared that the objective was the “decapitation” of the Iranian regime, meaning the elimination of its leadership: “On the first day of the conflict, Iran’s Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei was killed as a result of targeted bombardments carried out by Israel and the United States, and in addition, a large number of Iran’s high-ranking officials—approximately 40–50 people—also lost their lives. This was effectively the country’s ruling elite, and at that moment there was hope that after losing such high-level leaders, the regime would fall into confusion and potentially collapse.”
Paolo von Schirach said that this scenario did not materialize, and although the killing of other high-ranking officials continued in the following stages, it did not lead to the collapse of the regime.
The expert believes that this situation demonstrates the high capabilities of US and Israeli intelligence: “Their knowledge of the movements and exact locations of Iran’s leadership is truly remarkable.”
The analyst added that, in addition, actions were carried out aimed at the systematic destruction of key components of Iran’s military potential, with missiles, missile depots, launch systems, and other military infrastructure being targeted, which resulted in significant losses for Iran.
At the same time, he noted that the bombing campaign prompted Iran to take retaliatory measures. Iran carried out missile and drone strikes on Gulf countries hosting US military bases, as well as on states generally considered US allies, which expanded the geography of the conflict.
Paolo von Schirach emphasized that another important issue concerns the Strait of Hormuz. He noted that a ceasefire has now been agreed between the parties, which is a notable development: “Because shortly before the ceasefire, the United States had announced that it would carry out large-scale strikes on Iran’s critical infrastructure, particularly power plants. This could have caused serious chaos in the country and had a severe impact, especially on the civilian population.”
The expert stated that it is still uncertain what agreements may be possible in the future, and that a definite agreement must be reached regarding the future of the Strait of Hormuz: “If Iran says it will maintain control over this strait and demand payment for the passage of all commercial ships, oil tankers, and other cargo passing through it, this will further complicate the situation and will most likely be unacceptable for Washington.”
According to Paolo von Schirach, it is still unclear what kind of compromise will be found: “Both sides want to end the conflict, but it is not entirely clear which side is more interested in doing so. On one side are Israel and the United States, and on the other is Iran. The Gulf countries are not merely observers, as they are involved in the conflict due to their geographical position and their military support for the United States.”
The expert particularly noted the importance of military facilities located in countries such as Qatar and Bahrain in this context.
In conclusion, Paolo von Schirach emphasized that it remains uncertain whether this ceasefire will be sustainable and lead to long-term peace: “Relations between the United States and Iran are extremely tense, and there is no mutual trust. A widely held view in Washington is that the leadership in Tehran consists of radical forces ready to harm the West, particularly the United States and Israel.”
He added that it is still too early to say whether real peace is possible. However, in his view, achieving a ceasefire instead of the escalation promised by Donald Trump can be considered a positive development.
Solidarity and concern within Iran: how society views the ceasefire
Iranian political analyst Peiman Salehi told APA that over the past 40 days, a significantly different dynamic has emerged within the country compared to previous periods. According to him, unlike earlier stages marked by more visible civil protests and social fragmentation, this time a broad sense of solidarity has been observed within society.
The analyst noted that during this period, different segments of society, despite differences in opinions and political views, have united around a common position, prioritizing the defense of the country. In his view, the main reason for the formation of this solidarity is directly linked to the outbreak of the conflict and public perception.
According to Salehi, a significant part of Iranian society believes that attacks on the country during two separate stages—when negotiations between Iran and Western countries were ongoing—had a serious impact on public opinion. As a result, attention within society has shifted from internal divisions to external threats and national issues.
In his opinion, under such circumstances, even individuals who hold critical positions in domestic politics demonstrate a different approach in the face of external threats, showing a certain level of national unity. The analyst emphasized that the support observed during this period does not mean full agreement with domestic policies, but should rather be viewed as a defensive reaction to an external threat.
Peiman Salehi added that amid this solidarity, there are also serious concerns within society. He noted that a significant part of the population is raising questions about why the ceasefire was declared at this particular stage.
According to the analyst, the main concern is related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under its previous regime. This situation could likely create conditions for the free movement of ships belonging to Western allies, which could weaken one of Iran's important levers of pressure.
He stated that remarks by Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi regarding the imposition of fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz have somewhat reduced these concerns, but doubts within society have not been completely eliminated.
Salehi said that another serious concern is related to the sustainability of the ceasefire. According to him, approaches based on previous experiences strengthen the likelihood that this agreement will not be long-term.
The analyst added that recent events in the region, particularly Israel's attacks on Lebanon, increase the risk of renewed tensions, which deepens public concerns.
In his opinion, the prevailing view in society is that the ceasefire can only be considered acceptable if the conditions put forward by Iran are fulfilled. Among these conditions, the complete lifting of sanctions imposed in recent years and the preservation and strengthening of economic leverage tools such as the Strait of Hormuz hold a particularly important place.
Salehi noted that at the current stage, it is still too early to draw a definitive conclusion about this ceasefire. One of the main reasons for this is that the conditions put forward by Iran are largely shaped in the country’s favor, which raises doubts about their full implementation.
The analyst added that previous experience of negotiations with the United States, in particular, has led to the formation of a cautious approach within society regarding the durability and implementation of agreements.
In conclusion, Peiman Salehi stated that the general position formed among a part of society can be characterized as cautious realism. According to him, even in the best-case scenario, only part of the proposed conditions—approximately six or seven points—are expected to be implemented in practice.
The analyst believes that for this reason, the current ceasefire is viewed by many not as a final outcome, but as a temporary phase dependent on real results to be achieved in the near future.
Israel’s security perspective and the region’s economic sensitivity
Israeli political analyst Yuri Bocharov said that the ceasefire reached between the United States, Israel, and Iran should be assessed not as a comprehensive resolution of deeply rooted conflicts in the region, but rather as a temporary stabilizing measure.
Speaking to APA, Bocharov noted that the situation in the Middle East should be analyzed not only based on the positions of the main parties, but also within a broader and multidimensional framework that takes into account the interests of external actors with significant stakes in the region.
According to him, the ceasefire reflects differing priorities among the main parties. For the United States, the agreement primarily aims to maintain domestic political stability and reduce the costs of long-term foreign military involvement. For Israel, the focus remains on preserving national security and strategic deterrence, particularly amid ongoing threats.
Bocharov stated that Middle Eastern countries tend to approach the situation more from an economic perspective, prioritizing stability in energy markets and the security of key transit routes. According to him, external actors are mainly focused on minimizing risks in global markets, particularly in the energy and transportation sectors.
“In this context, the ceasefire does not appear to be a definitive solution, but rather a temporary stabilizing tool,” he said, adding that while this agreement creates certain opportunities for diplomatic maneuvering, it does not eliminate the core contradictions of the conflict.
The analyst noted that within Israel, this agreement has been received with caution, and in some cases criticism, in political and security circles. He emphasized that several objectives set before the escalation have not yet been fulfilled. These include limiting Iran’s nuclear program, reducing ballistic missile threats, and ending Tehran’s support for allied non-state actors such as HAMAS and Hezbollah.
Bocharov also pointed out that military tensions continue on the Lebanese front, with clashes involving Hezbollah still occurring, underscoring that the escalation period has not been fully brought under control.
At the same time, according to him, Israel’s strategic decisions are heavily dependent on its relations with the United States, particularly in terms of military supplies, technological support, and operational coordination, and this interdependence plays an important role in shaping its approach to the ceasefire.
“The current situation is rather assessed as a temporary pause shaped by external political factors, not as a sustainable settlement,” he said.
Bocharov added that the situation in the region is highly volatile and events are developing rapidly and unpredictably, which makes both short-term and long-term forecasts uncertain.
In conclusion, the analyst noted that this ceasefire should be viewed not as a final point, but as a stage in an ongoing and unresolved strategic confrontation, and uncertainty regarding the future trajectory of the conflict continues to persist.
Conclusion
The three presented approaches show that the current ceasefire is not a resolution of the crisis in the region, but only its next stage. In Paolo von Schirach’s assessment, the main emphasis is on the scale of the military campaign, the targeting of Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure, as well as the issue of control over the Strait of Hormuz becoming one of the key factors of future tension. His views indicate that despite significant military strikes, the initial strategic objective—regime change or the collapse of the system—has not been achieved, which suggests that the confrontation has taken on a more complex and long-term character.
Peiman Salehi’s approach highlights how the conflict is perceived within Iran. His analysis shows that the threat of external attack has pushed internal political differences into the background, creating a sense of national solidarity in Iranian society. At the same time, this solidarity is presented not as unconditional support, but as a defensive reaction to an external threat. The concerns emphasized by Salehi—particularly regarding the status of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions, and the reliability of the ceasefire—indicate that a cautious and skeptical attitude remains strong within Iranian society.
Yuri Bocharov, in turn, evaluates the ceasefire within the framework of Israel’s and the broader region’s security architecture. His position shows that the main problem for Israel has not been resolved, as concerns remain regarding Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile potential, and regional influence. At the same time, the fact that Middle Eastern countries approach the issue more from the perspective of economic and transit security confirms that the conflict remains a risk factor not only militarily, but also for the global energy and transportation system.
Thus, when the views of all three experts are brought together, the overall picture that emerges is that this ceasefire, which has created relative calm in the region, is not a formula for sustainable peace. Deep mistrust remains between the parties, key strategic contradictions have not been resolved, there is no clear mechanism regarding crucial issues such as the Strait of Hormuz, and parallel regional tension points persist. Therefore, the current agreement should be assessed not as a final outcome, but as a temporary and fragile phase that will determine the direction of future developments.
Follow us on Telegram
t.me/apanewsaz
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on TikTok
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on X
ANALYSIS'>
