Peace or pause? Why the war is not ending

Finally, after more than a month of conflict, the war in the Middle East appears to be nearing a possible halt. On April 7, a two-week ceasefire was announced. The coming two weeks are expected to determine the region’s immediate future. Despite efforts by both Tehran and Washington to portray the situation as a victory, it is still too early to call it a lasting peace agreement. Ongoing developments suggest otherwise. 

It must be acknowledged that the demands on both sides remain serious, and neither appears willing to make concessions. The Israel factor continues to complicate the situation further. In such a complex and uncertain environment, the question of whether a sustainable ceasefire can be achieved remains open. What comes next is unclear. 

A 70-year hostility

One month may seem short compared to other wars in history. Humanity has witnessed conflicts lasting decades or even centuries, including the nearly 800-year Reconquista, the 680-year Roman–Persian wars, and others. The tendency toward conflict, rooted in early human history, remains present even in societies considered modern today. 

The current tensions in the Middle East did not emerge overnight. Their roots trace back decades, particularly to August 1953, when a CIA-backed operation known as “Ajax” led to the overthrow of Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. 

Mossadegh’s main action — nationalizing the country’s oil industry and limiting Western corporate influence — led to his removal. From that point, the United States came to be viewed in Iran as an imperial power undermining national sovereignty. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, seen as aligned with Washington, was brought to power. 

Twenty-six years later, the 1979 Islamic Revolution fundamentally changed the situation. The fall of the Shah and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini marked the loss of a key U.S. ally in the region. The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and the 444-day hostage crisis involving 52 diplomats effectively severed diplomatic ties. Washington formally cut relations in April 1980, beginning a period of sanctions that continues to this day. 

During the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq War, U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, along with the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by a U.S. warship, which killed 290 civilians, deepened hostility. Iran subsequently shifted its defense strategy, building networks of allied groups across the region, including in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and Iraq. 

In the 21st century, tensions took on nuclear and technological dimensions. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent developments, Iran was labeled part of an “axis of evil” by the Bush administration. Iran’s nuclear program further intensified pressure. The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), later withdrawn from by the United States in 2018, marked another turning point. The 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani brought the two countries close to direct confrontation. 

More recently, the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran last June, along with U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities in Isfahan and Natanz, further escalated tensions and set the stage for renewed confrontation. 

By 2026, the confrontation has reached a critical point. Joint U.S.–Israel operations launched on February 28 have once again pushed the region into instability. 

Assessing the losses

Although the latest escalation lasted only a month, the scale of losses has been significant. Both Tehran and Washington are now assessing the consequences, revealing a conflict with no clear winners — only costly setbacks. 

For Washington, the past month has brought unexpected political and social challenges. More than 120 drone and missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria reportedly resulted in over 15 fatalities and nearly 200 injuries among military personnel. 

Economic consequences have been particularly severe. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz pushed global oil prices above $115 per barrel, contributing to a rise in U.S. inflation to 4.8%. Criticism from regional allies such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates has also raised questions about Washington’s influence. Military expenditures increased by an additional $12 billion over the month, without delivering a decisive outcome. 

Domestically, the conflict has affected the political standing of the U.S. administration. Ahead of midterm elections, criticism has intensified over the government’s handling of the situation and its inability to restrain regional allies. Internationally, the war has damaged the country’s image. 

For Iran, the past month has been marked by some of the most severe losses in decades. Targeted strikes reportedly resulted in the deaths of several senior officials and military figures, significantly weakening key elements of the state structure and regional networks. 

In terms of infrastructure, Iran’s military and industrial capabilities have also been affected. Damage to key facilities, including ports, nuclear sites and energy infrastructure, has set back parts of its strategic programs. The national currency has weakened significantly, contributing to renewed domestic discontent. 

Some analysts estimate that even a short conflict of this scale could set the region back by years. The cumulative losses suggest that any further escalation would come at an even higher cost. 

Temporary ceasefire or strategic pause?

The two-week ceasefire may appear to signal de-escalation, but it is too early to draw firm conclusions. While recent statements suggest a temporary easing of tensions, underlying disagreements remain unresolved. 

The demands put forward by both sides differ significantly, making compromise difficult. Iran is seeking a full end to hostilities and relief from external pressure, while maintaining its strategic autonomy. 

Israel, meanwhile, does not appear inclined toward a full de-escalation, viewing Iran’s regional influence as a strategic threat. Despite a pause in direct confrontation, tensions persist through ongoing actions involving allied groups. 

For the United States, the agreement may represent a tactical success in limiting escalation while preserving diplomatic flexibility. However, its long-term strategic position in the region remains uncertain. Control over key routes such as the Strait of Hormuz continues to be a critical factor influencing global markets. 

China’s role, though less visible, is also noteworthy. Some reports suggest Beijing has played a role in facilitating dialogue, favoring economic and technological leverage over direct political pressure. 

Pakistan has also emerged as an active diplomatic participant, with efforts to bring both sides to the negotiating table. Analysts note that Islamabad has played a role in facilitating the current ceasefire arrangement. 

However, questions remain regarding neutrality, given Pakistan’s geopolitical positioning and relations with Washington. 

Despite the ceasefire, the risk of renewed escalation remains high. Tensions between Iran and Israel, as well as broader regional dynamics, could reignite conflict at any time. 

In conclusion, a return to the previous status quo in the Middle East appears unlikely. The region is undergoing significant geopolitical shifts, and a new balance is likely to emerge over time. The current ceasefire should therefore be seen not as a resolution, but as a pause before the next phase.