Columns

In what can only be described as a dramatic eleventh-hour development, a temporary ceasefire was announced last week in the escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, to view this pause as a simple diplomatic breakthrough is to ignore the grim reality of how it was arrived at. This was not a peace born of mutual understanding, but a temporary halt to a campaign of unprovoked aggression—a campaign that has seen the United States and Israel attempt to dismantle a sovereign nation, only to find that the spirit of a people cannot be decapitated alongside its leadership.  

The genesis of this current crisis lies not in Tehran, but in the corridors of power in Washington and Tel Aviv. Throughout the recent weeks of intensifying hostilities, the narrative pushed by the Trump administration and the Israeli government has been one of preemption. Yet, the scale of the assault suggests a far more predatory objective. The height of this belligerence was reached when the Trump administration issued a chilling ultimatum that stunned the international community: a threat to destroy Iranian civilization in one night unless Tehran submitted to total negotiation on US terms.

Such rhetoric transcends standard military posturing and reflected genocidal intent. By targeting the very concept of a civilization, the U.S. signaled that its war was not merely against a government or a military apparatus, but against the history, culture, and existence of the Iranian people. This posture of absolute aggression set the stage for a conflict where the U.S. and Israel acted as the primary destabilisers, seeking to redraw the map of West Asia through sheer force and existential terror.

Central to the strategy of the U.S.-Israeli axis was the decapitation of the Iranian administration. Through a series of targeted strikes and high-intensity military operations, key figures within the Iranian political and military hierarchy were eliminated. The strategic calculation was simple: remove the head, and the body will wither. Washington and Tel Aviv expected a total collapse of Iranian governance, a descent into chaos that would facilitate a swift and dictated surrender.

They calculated incorrectly.

In a remarkable display of institutional resilience, the Iranian government stood firm. Despite the loss of several high-ranking officials, the administrative machinery of the state continued to function, and the military command structure remained intact. This endurance has sent a powerful message to the world: the Iranian state is not a cult of personality, but a deeply embedded system supported by a nationalistic fervor that thrives under external pressure. Rather than seeking terms out of weakness, Tehran’s eventual willingness to engage in ceasefire talks was a tactical move by a government that remains very much in control of its destiny. The threat to wipe out Iranian civilization failed to achieve its intended psychological or strategic effect, proving that while technological superiority can destroy infrastructure, it cannot easily break the will of a consolidated state.

The ink on the Islamabad-mediated agreement was barely dry when the familiar patterns of Israeli military policy began to re-emerge. Almost immediately after the ceasefire was signalled, Israel launched one of its most intense assaults on Lebanon in recent years, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties.

The justification from Tel Aviv was predictable: they asserted that Lebanon was not covered under the terms of the Iran-U.S. ceasefire. This claim was immediately and forcefully disputed by Tehran. Pakistani officials, acting as the primary mediators, confirmed that Lebanon was indeed included in the de-escalation framework.

This discrepancy highlights a long-standing Israeli practice: selective conformity. There is a pattern where Israel treats peace accords not as binding contracts but as deals that give Israel the flexibility to follow or not according to its whim. This was reflected in Gaza, where the establishment of the “Board of Peace” under President Trump failed to stop intermittent military operations by Israel. Just this week, the killing of an Al Jazeera journalist in Gaza by an Israeli strike served as a gruesome reminder that peace is often a relative term in the eyes of the Israeli Defense Forces.

These actions reinforce the perception that ceasefires are being used by the U.S.-Israeli alliance less as instruments of peace and more as tactical pauses. These pauses allow for the reloading of batteries, the repositioning of assets, and the cooling of international condemnation, while maintaining the right to strike at will on targets of choice

As Israel’s primary benefactor, Washington possesses the leverage to enforce strict adherence to any agreement. However, the Trump administration has shown a distinct lack of will to restrain its ally. Instead, the rhetoric following the ceasefire has been one of triumphalism. Official statements have sought to portray the pause as a decisive victory, suggesting Iran was cowed into submission.

This narrative may serve domestic political purposes, but it is a diplomatic disaster. By framing a ceasefire as a unilateral surrender, the U.S. hardens the positions of those in Tehran who argue that diplomacy with the United States is a fool’s errand. Furthermore, this campaign of aggression has come at a steep price for the U.S. and Israel on the global stage.

The war has severely strained relationships with key NATO allies and European partners who view the civilizational destruction rhetoric with horror. Public opinion, already shifting during the prolonged conflict in Gaza, has turned sharply against the U.S.-Israeli axis. In the court of international perception, Iran’s refusal to capitulate in the face of overwhelming, asymmetrical power has enhanced its standing, framing it as a bastion of resistance against neo-imperialist overreach.

As preparations begin for a new round of talks in Islamabad, the stakes could not be higher. Pakistan’s emerging role as a mediator offers a glimmer of hope for a more balanced dialogue, away from the heavy-handedness of Western-centric negotiations. However, for these talks to yield anything beyond another temporary reprieve, there must be a fundamental shift in the American and Israeli approach.

The zero-sum thinking that has characterized U.S. policy—the idea that Iranian security is an inherent threat to American interests—must be abandoned. Moreover, the international community must demand mechanisms for accountability to ensure that Israel does not continue its habit of selective adherence.

The conflict has proven that military power is not the sole determinant of a nation’s survival. Legitimacy and national dignity are potent forces that no amount of eleventh-hour threats can extinguish. The question remaining for the diplomats in Islamabad is not who can claim victory, but whether the United States and Israel are willing to accept a world where they cannot simply dictate terms through the threat of annihilation. If the cycle of violence is to be broken, it will require the aggressors to finally recognize that the civilization they sought to destroy is the very partner they must now learn to respect

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)