It does not appear that the announcement made by Donald Trump on 1 May, in his message to the US Congress declaring the end of the war against Iran, reflects an actual conclusion to the conflict. The war, launched in coordination with Israel at dawn on 28 February, was officially described as halted, with Trump noting that military operations had been suspended on 7 April.
However, the underlying conditions that justified the war have neither been resolved nor meaningfully addressed. On the contrary, they remain unresolved, compounded by a new and significant issue: the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, which had previously operated without obstruction prior to the escalation.
Strategic Damage and Internal Disruption in Iran
There is no dispute over the scale of damage suffered by Iran following extensive strikes targeting its military, security, and political infrastructure. Among the most significant developments was the reported killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, along with dozens of senior political, military, and security figures, all of whom disappeared entirely from the political landscape.
This resulted in severe internal disruption, with ongoing efforts to stabilise the system through successive layers of leadership prepared for such contingencies.
The memory of the 12 day war last year remains active, alongside the scale of intelligence penetration achieved by Israel over more than two decades. The effects of this became evident following the events of 7 October 2023, as Israel’s response extended across the regional network aligned with Tehran, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
Resilience Under Pressure
Despite the political and economic strain, Iran has demonstrated the capacity to withstand an unprecedented level of military pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv. Nevertheless, this resilience does not imply willingness to endure a repeat of such an assault.
The confrontation marked the first direct test of the Iranian system since the 1979 revolution that established its current political framework. For decades, this system has been under continuous global observation as it expanded its military capabilities and regional influence.
Notably, successive international sanctions imposed over Iran’s nuclear programme have not halted its progress. Its nuclear activities have continued, its regional influence has expanded, and its international relations have remained intact. Iran leveraged the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to strengthen its regional position.
Western Policy and Strategic Calculations
The article rejects simplistic explanations based on conspiracy narratives regarding decades of international tolerance towards Iran’s system. Instead, it suggests that Western admiration for Persian civilisation, spanning over 2,500 years, may have contributed to a degree of strategic leniency.
This was often reflected in Western openness towards so called reformist figures such as Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, despite the fact that their leadership did not fundamentally alter the nature of the governing system.
At the same time, the Iranian leadership has maintained and preserved the historical legacy of Persian civilisation, positioning itself as a continuation of earlier imperial traditions.
Iran as a Regional Counterweight
The article argues that Western political and intellectual circles have long viewed Iran, regardless of its governing system, as a strategic counterbalance to the Arab world. In this framework, Iran is seen as a necessary factor in maintaining fragmentation within the region, complementing the role of Israel without requiring formal coordination.
The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is identified as a pivotal moment that enabled Iran to reassert itself regionally following its relative isolation after the Iran Iraq war. The collapse of Iraq’s regional standing opened strategic space for Iran to expand its influence.
Shifting US Approach and the Impact of October 7
Among US leaders, Trump is presented as one of the few to directly confront Iran’s regional role. Previous administrations are described as either permissive or indirectly supportive of Iran’s expansion.
The events of 7 October 2023 triggered a significant reassessment across Western capitals. Iran’s support for the confrontation, alongside the involvement of its regional allies, crossed what is described as a clear red line for the West, where Israeli security remains a fixed priority.
While Western leaders initially rallied behind Israel, this support later faced pressure due to the scale and brutality of the war on Gaza. Despite this shift, Western positions remained firm in opposition to Iran and its regional network.
Escalation Without Resolution
This firm stance did not initially translate into direct military confrontation with Iran. That changed with Trump’s return to power, following his earlier withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and the killing of Qasem Soleimani during his first term.
In his second term, Trump appears intent on continuing this trajectory. However, the article suggests that his current strategy lacks decisive clarity. The scope of objectives may have expanded beyond practical limits, or the issue may lie not in the available power, but in the coherence of the strategic vision itself.
An Unfinished Conflict
The article concludes that the war cannot be considered definitively over. The structural drivers of conflict remain in place, and the current pause reflects a temporary suspension rather than a resolution.
