Iran’s Uneasy Truce Points to an American Defeat
A Pakistan-brokered ceasefire may pause the fighting, but it underlines Washington’s strategic failure and raises a larger question: whether China will eventually step into the vacuum. A commentary by Nathalie Tocci
After US President Donald Trump’s obscene and unbalanced statements on Iran came the temporary ceasefire brokered by Pakistan.
Trump wanted it desperately, growing ever more agitated by the United States’ evident strategic failure in the Middle East, and increasingly alarmed by the energy shock and inflation triggered by the war he himself had foolishly set in motion.
He was openly threatening war crimes, invoking attacks on civilian infrastructure. He demanded that Iran be driven back to the “Stone Age” and that “an entire civilisation” be “eliminated in one night”, unless the Iranian regime accepted his terms and reopened the Strait of Hormuz.
But none of this altered the underlying reality.
We are witnessing the dramatic endgame of what was once the liberal Leviathan of the international system. On the scorched earth left behind, the question is whether, when and how China might be willing to fill the void, with all the risks that would entail.
The US-Israeli war against Iran, if measured by the number of targets hit, can be told as a success. Iran will emerge from this conflict weakened, if not militarily defeated.
But the war’s current trajectory leaves the Islamic Republic in a politically and strategically stronger position, and the regime in Tehran is well aware of it.
Politically, it had been on the verge of collapse after the wave of protests in January. For the first time, the debate was no longer whether this would happen, but when.
Instead, the war has given it fresh life, with the predictable concentration of power in the hands of the Revolutionary Guards. The Iranian regime is now more hardened and more brutal: Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tribute to the Iranian people.
Strategically, through its control of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has acquired leverage that it is unlikely to surrender even after a ceasefire.
It is no coincidence that the multilateral initiatives undertaken by European and Asian countries envisage an active role in the region not only after hostilities cease, but also in coordination with Tehran.
Within the region, some actors — Israel, but also the United Arab Emirates — remain determined to celebrate the prospects of a Trumpian Middle East.
Netanyahu, a skilful manipulator, is most likely doing so to buy time: the longer the war continues, the more it serves his personal interests.
And even once this conflict ends, Israel will continue what has become a permanent war across the Middle East.
The genocide in Gaza, the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Jerusalem, the war and occupation in southern Lebanon and south-western Syria, and the military strikes carried out whenever it chooses in Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere, have become part of the military doctrine of an increasingly authoritarian and revisionist Israel.
The Emirates, the Gulf state most exposed to Iran because it is also the closest to Israel, are in panic.
It is hard to know whether they truly believe in the prospect of a Trumpian Middle East or are simply clinging to an illusion.
With these partial exceptions, it is clear to all in the region — beginning with Saudi Arabia — that the United States no longer provides the security guarantee it once did.
The debate echoes the one now taking place in Europe in the context of the war in Ukraine: dependence on the US no longer guarantees security; it has become a vulnerability that must be addressed by investing in one’s own defence and diversifying security partnerships.
Beyond the Middle East, the war against Iran promises to reshape the global balance of power.
Iran has discovered a strategic weapon in its control of Hormuz, and it will use it not only to secure the regime’s survival and ease the economy’s sanctions burden — something it has already managed to do through the de-sanctioning of 140mn barrels of Iranian oil — but also to ensure that this second US-Israeli war is not followed by a third.
That is why Iran is now pressing for a permanent ceasefire.
There is only one actor that could alter these calculations: China.
It is no coincidence that Pakistan, which mediated the conflict, agreed with Beijing on a plan that includes a cessation of hostilities, reaffirms international law, and calls for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz and a multilateral solution within the UN framework.
Implicit in the wording of that proposal is the suggestion that China could provide Iran with the guarantee that what happened in this war will not happen again.
Yet Beijing’s ambiguity remains such that we do not know whether it is truly prepared to move beyond its habitual preference for sitting back and watching American self-harm unfold.
It probably calculates that the risks still outweigh the benefits of a more direct and concrete commitment.
What is clear, however, is that a more activist Chinese role in the Middle East represents both the most plausible path towards a stable de-escalation and a potentially fatal blow to the United States, one whose repercussions would extend far beyond the region.
A previous version of this article was published by the Italian daily La Stampa
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
