A recent report in The Economist examined former U.S. President Donald Trump’s sudden declaration of an end to the Iran–Israel war, following American airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Described as the “12-Day War,” the conflict may have halted for now, but key questions remain: Will the ceasefire hold? What’s next for Iran’s nuclear program? And has the Middle East actually become more stable—or just more uncertain?
Trump claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire just two days after U.S. B-2 stealth bombers launched precision strikes on deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites.
“I want to congratulate both Israel and Iran for having the patience, courage, and intelligence to end what should be called the ‘Twelve-Day War,’” he posted on Truth Social, framing himself as the architect of peace.
A Ceasefire with No Paper Trail
According to The Economist, Trump first secured Israel’s agreement, then relayed a proposal to Iran via Qatari mediation. The plan required Iran to stop firing first, followed by Israel 12 hours later. Although Tehran denied any formal agreement, it indicated a willingness to halt if Israel did the same.
However, the ceasefire window ended with three Israeli casualties from Iranian rocket fire—interpreted as a symbolic final strike.
A Rapid Escalation and a Questionable End
The conflict escalated suddenly when Israel launched a surprise attack on June 13, targeting Iranian air defences, assassinating nuclear scientists and top commanders, and beginning the systematic dismantling of Iran’s nuclear network.
On June 22, the U.S. intervened with Operation Midnight Hammer, deploying:
- 14 bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 bombers on Natanz and Fordow
- Roughly 30 Tomahawk missiles targeting Isfahan
In response, Iran fired 14 missiles—matching the number of U.S. bombs—at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. All but one were intercepted. The single missile caused no injuries, reportedly due to a prior warning issued by Iran. Just two hours later, Trump announced the ceasefire.
Three Big Questions
The Economist posed three strategic questions that now loom large:
- Will the ceasefire hold?
- Can a new diplomatic agreement restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
- Is the region more stable now—or simply between storms?
So far, neither Iran nor Israel has officially confirmed a ceasefire. However, both appear to have reasons for de-escalation. Tehran, despite its anti-American rhetoric, has avoided direct war for decades, favouring proxy warfare and diplomacy. With weakened allies, growing internal dissent, and U.S. involvement, Iran may now be seeking to limit losses.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who praised Trump’s intervention, is unlikely to jeopardise the alliance by resuming strikes. Israeli military officials also claim that most strategic objectives have been achieved.
Strategic Win or Temporary Pause?
Some observers believe Israel may now declare “victory” and pause its military campaign without a formal agreement, especially since Netanyahu views the operation as a historic achievement. Trump, too, is eager to conclude the war quickly to reaffirm his “no more endless wars” narrative—a key promise following U.S. entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Still, Iran’s nuclear knowledge remains intact. Despite the strikes, Iran is unlikely to abandon its ambitions. Supreme Leader Khamenei may now opt to rebuild the program covertly, especially given reports that the IAEA has no clear account of 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%.
If Iran has hidden centrifuges for uranium enrichment, it could resume producing weapons-grade fissile material rapidly. Experts note this quantity could fuel up to 10 nuclear bombs.
From the JCPOA to Zero Enrichment?
The 2015 nuclear deal brokered under President Obama allowed Iran to enrich uranium under strict international oversight, limiting its breakout capability to roughly one year. But Trump withdrew from the deal during his first term, and just before Israel’s strikes, Iran was reportedly days or weeks away from nuclear breakout—with intelligence suggesting efforts to design a nuclear warhead for missile delivery.
In recent backchannel negotiations, Trump demanded a “zero enrichment” policy, with his envoy, Steve Witkoff, proposing a compromise: Iran could enrich uranium under the supervision of a regional nuclear consortium based outside Iranian territory. It’s unclear if this offer remains on the table—or whether either Tehran or Tel Aviv would accept it.
Middle East Stability: An Illusion?
The Economist noted that regional stability remains fragile as long as Iran’s revolutionary regime holds power. Should Israel discover any renewed nuclear activity, it may launch further attacks even without U.S. backing.
Tel Aviv is also expected to push for restrictions on Iran’s weapons systems and regional proxies, after a year of intense conflict with Iran-aligned forces across the Middle East.
Some policymakers in Israel and Washington believe real stability requires regime change in Tehran. Israel has already targeted Evin Prison and Basij headquarters, aiming to undermine Iran’s internal security apparatus. However, public unrest has not materialised—possibly due to the ongoing war. If the fighting stops, internal dissent may resurface.
Until then, Israel and its Gulf Arab allies will continue relying on U.S. military protection to maintain the regional balance.
Operation Midnight Hammer: Strategic Might, Uncertain Peace
The article concluded by stating that Operation Midnight Hammer underscored America’s central role in shaping Middle Eastern conflict outcomes—even as calls grow within Washington to shift focus toward China and reduce global military engagement.
But for now, the military intervention and ceasefire announcement have not brought lasting peace — only a pause in a volatile cycle.
