US & Israel vs Iran: Tactical Pause Not Ceasefire

The war may pause, but its goals remain unchanged — regime change, containment, and control of Eurasia

I called it wrong.

Trump’s announced two-week delay on bombing Iran proved not to be a delay at all — but another ruse. Israel simply could not hold out for another 14 days under relentless ballistic missile barrages. Trump had no choice; Israel was crumbling.

The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities — and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar — were largely performative. The US and Iran telegraphed their moves, evacuated targets beforehand, and the damage appears far less than either side claims.

Israel sought a ceasefire, and Washington turned to Qatar to persuade Tehran to accept it. Iran had made clear from the outset — it would halt hostilities when Israel did.

Trump announced the truce at midnight on Monday — prompting headlines declaring: “Iran emerges victorious following the Israeli aggression on its territory.”

Washington and West Jerusalem’s declared and undeclared war objectives have failed. Iran’s nuclear programme remains intact. Iran is moving to suspend IAEA inspections, and 450 kilos of highly enriched uranium are now unaccounted for.

Missile production lines are still operational, and the Iranian government did not collapse — despite the targeted assassination of many top officials. In fact, Iranians rallied behind their leadership.

The reality check? Israel was running low on missile interceptors. Its industrial base, energy infrastructure, ports, and military installations were increasingly degraded. While Iran is a large, autarkic state with an advanced industrial capacity — able to better absorb prolonged conflict — Israel lacks that strategic depth. Bluntly, Israel ran out of road — and needed the ceasefire more than Iran.

Trump also faced enormous pressure from his own MAGA base not to start another forever war. The prospect of Iran replicating the Yemen model in Hormuz — using selective disruption rather than outright closure — posed a serious risk of global market instability. He needed an exit strategy. As I asked in a previous post: “Can he launch performative strikes, claim victory, and walk away?”

Well, he has — decisively backing down. Just minutes before the unofficial truce began, Iran launched heavy missile strikes on Beersheba, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. The message was clear: “You started this. We’ll finish it. If that’s acceptable to you, we have a truce. Otherwise, we continue.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian asserted —

“Israel and its supporters were counting on stirring discontent among the Iranian people…

The Israelis failed to achieve the objectives of its aggression against Iran…

Iran will not violate the ceasefire unless Israel does…

Tehran is ready for dialogue and to defend the rights of the Iranian people at the negotiating table”.

This ceasefire should be seen for what it likely is: a tactical pause , not a lasting peace. Regime change operations against Iran will continue — overtly or covertly. Both sides will learn from this conflict and adjust accordingly.

Israel has proven itself agile, ruthless, extrajudicial — “history’s most prolific practitioner of assassinations as a technique of statecraft”. But it lacks strategic depth and relies almost entirely on American backing to wage war. And Trump has clearly rejected Netanyahu’s call for America to go all-in on a full-scale war with Iran — for now.

What next?

Both sides will regroup.

Iran faces urgent internal security challenges, including foreign-backed extremist networks. China and Russia offer not only political support, but advanced counterintelligence tools and digital infrastructure to detect, infiltrate, and dismantle these proxy threats.

Tehran also faces a broader question: whether to agree a full defence pact with Russia. Putin recently revealed he offered one, but Iran hesitated — wary of compromising its independence and recalling its long-standing caution toward Russian intentions.

The real geopolitical stakes lie with Beijing and Moscow. Positioned at the heart of Eurasia, Iran plays a central role in the global shift toward multipolarity. Moves targeting Iran for regime change — paired with initiatives like the Zangezur Corridor — are widely interpreted as NATO expansionism in action, directly challenging Chinese and Russian strategic interests.

Though not formally backed by NATO, the corridor fits within a broader Western strategy to extend influence into the Caucasus and Central Asia — led by allies like Turkey and Azerbaijan, and supported by partners such as Israel and the US.

This initiative threatens regional sovereignty by encroaching on Russia’s southern frontier and near China’s Xinjiang region — where fears of foreign-backed separatism remain high.

For Russia, the corridor weakens its grip on the Caucasus — a region it considers its "near abroad." For China, it raises alarms over instability and interference along its western border.

History teaches us that ceasefires rarely hold. They are often not endings, but pauses — like the breath before the next blow. Unless there is a broader “grand bargain” between the ‘Great Powers’ — America, China and Russia — expect more of the same — with civilians bearing the brunt of future escalations.

This pattern echoes what Ibn Khaldun , the 14th-century polymath known for his groundbreaking work on the rise and fall of civilisations, described centuries ago: the cyclical nature of power, where states rise on unity and momentum, only to weaken from within — through overreach, fatigue, and the erosion of collective will.

The current truce may offer respite, but it will not bring peace until the great powers reach either a reckoning or exhaustion — the twin forces Ibn Khaldun saw as the inevitable turning points of history.

Iran is the chosen battlefield — where the future is being fought over, long before it arrives.