The announcement of a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran, made by U.S. President Donald Trump, brings temporary relief after ten days of warfare. Yet this dramatic pause in hostilities raises deeper questions about strategic intent, timing, and the economic and political structures that underlie U.S. and Israeli militarism in the region.
Manufactured Escalation, Managed De-escalation?
President Trump’s declaration, posted on his Truth Social platform, claimed that the war “will be considered ENDED” after a 12-hour ceasefire. But this closure resembles a media performance more than a substantive peace initiative. He even demonstrates this when speaking to the media just before leaving for the NATO summit. He claims to now be angry with Israel.
The rapid swing from nuclear site bombings and retaliatory missile strikes to a short-term ceasefire appears choreographed. They actually echoe patterns of conflict escalation followed by sudden restraint that were evident during Trump’s first term.
In January 2020, Trump authorised the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian general, igniting concerns about war. Iran responded by firing missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq. At the time, Trump minimised the retaliation and avoided military escalation. The parallels with today’s script are all too obvious. First, initiate provocation, permit limited retaliation, claim restraint, and leverage the crisis for political capital. However, during the first term, if Trump had hoped to cash in on that situation to win the elections, it did not go as planned. He appeared to have underestimated Iran, assuming that they would not respond, given his rhetoric on Twitter at the time.
This time around, however, it seems the result is the same, but the objectives have shifted slightly. A temporary ceasefire is framed not as a de-escalation of hostilities but as a personal diplomatic victory. For Trump, it feeds into his ongoing narrative that he is the ultimate negotiator and broker of peace. He even claimed he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
However, the attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had limited long-term impact, and Iran’s retaliation revealed both Israel’s vulnerabilities and its dependency on U.S. backing.
Weaponized Diplomacy and Political Incentives
This latest escalation is deeper, as it involved the U.S. and Israel launching unprovoked attacks and, subsequently, coordinated strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities and a political prison in Tehran. All these actions carry significant strategic and symbolic weight. Israel’s widening of the target profile beyond military infrastructure, attacking even domestic institutions, suggests a political calculus designed to pressure Iran into overreacting. This is particularly evident in Israel’s clear statement that its aim is regime change in Iran.
From a political economy standpoint, the logic is clear. Crises abroad create opportunities for political leverage at home.
Trump, facing a volatile U.S. since he took over power in January, has long used foreign conflict to burnish credentials as a decisive leader. From the protests in Los Angeles and his fallout with Elon Musk to his miscalculated and largely disastrous tariff wars, his fortunes have been dwindling. His messaging during this crisis—declaring Iranian strikes as “very weak” and emphasising American invulnerability—reinforces a narrative of strength and dominance without commitment to sustained warfare.
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, facing domestic political turmoil and a stalled Palestinian front, finds in Iran a “safe enemy”—a perennial justification for security spending and international alignment with the U.S. Narrative management, not strategic necessity, appears to be guiding military action. War with Iran was a welcome distraction, given how much the war on Gaza and accusations of ‘genocide’ were costing Israel in moral authority. They needed a situation where they could again appear as a victim. Iran provided that opportunity.
But most importantly for Netanyahu, without concrete evidence to the contrary, he can take home the message that he has weakened Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Also, getting the US to join his campaign would be checked as a big win in his books.
Economic Structures and Geopolitical Markets
Beyond the political optics lies an economic matrix driving conflict. The U.S. military-industrial complex, with long-standing ties to Gulf security architecture, is deeply embedded in the maintenance of instability in the region. Iran directly targeted Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, in retaliation—highlighting the strategic importance of U.S. assets in energy-rich Gulf states.
Qatar’s response—condemning Iran while affirming the success of its own missile defence—reflects the duality of Gulf states. On one hand, they present the image of being politically neutral but on the other hand, they are economically dependent on both Western military protection and Iranian energy diplomacy. The closure of Qatari airspace during the strikes also reveals how global logistics and trade remain vulnerable to regional militarism.
This conflict cannot be separated from the geostrategic calculations underlying U.S. and Israeli military action. Iran has increasingly aligned with Russia and China in recent years, supplying Russia with drones for the Ukraine war and strengthening ties through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
As such, Russia’s entry into the conflict as a diplomatic backer of Iran and potential mediator signals an emerging multipolarity in the geopolitical energy order.
Ceasefire or Strategic Pause?
Crucially, Trump’s 12-hour ceasefire declaration—untethered from any formal verification or multilateral endorsement—raises doubts about its durability. It functions more as a tactical reset than a structural resolution. Iran has not publicly confirmed the terms, and Israel’s military posture remains aggressive.
What is absent is any legal accountability or diplomatic framework beyond Trump’s unilateral pronouncement. There is no discussion of international law, United Nations mediation, or longer-term verification mechanisms. The actors are not seeking peace; they are managing optics.
Crisis as Strategy
In this conflict cycle, violence appears less as a breakdown of order and more as an instrument of foreign policy and economic management. The repeated pattern—provocation, response, symbolic escalation, de-escalation—suggests that war itself is not the objective. Rather, it is the theatre of war that delivers value: rallying domestic bases, shifting media narratives, justifying military expenditures, and reinforcing regional alliances.
The 2025 Iran-Israel conflict, like that of 2020, shows how temporary ceasefires are not peace—they are interludes in a longer story of geopolitical competition, resource control, and political spectacle.
If there is to be true stability, it will not come from another Truth Social post, but from confronting the economic and institutional structures that make war a reusable political tool.
Economic pressures and diplomatic optics may have influenced the decision to halt fire — but the underlying strategic calculus remains volatile.
“Until the U.S., Iran, and Israel address the security architecture of the region, ceasefires are just intermissions,” said economist and analyst Farid Mohtadi.
With oil markets still jittery, diplomatic channels stretched, and proxy dynamics unresolved — particularly in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen — the next flashpoint may not be far off.
