Iran defeated Israel and the US, but lasting peace in the Middle East is still a long way off.

By José Reinaldo Carvalho - The announcement of the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, formalized last Tuesday (24), after 12 days of war by the Zionist Israeli state against Iran, was received by many as a relief in the face of the imminent risk of a devastating regional war. Iran achieved an important victory. It preserved, albeit with significant damage, its nuclear program for civilian purposes, maintained national cohesion, preserved its government, the stability of the Republic, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, the safety of its armed forces and the Revolutionary Guard, and paralyzed, at least temporarily, the war machine of its enemies.

Much remains to be seen to determine whether the ceasefire will mean lasting peace or just a temporary truce. There are many questions and speculations about the real motivations of the White House chief for announcing the ceasefire after committing a serious act of banditry by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. With the attacks, the United States doubly violated international law. In addition to attacking a sovereign country, openly violating the UN Charter, it opened fire on facilities protected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The development of the geopolitical situation, especially in the case of such an aggressive war against a peaceful and independent country, with evident repercussions for international stability, cannot be examined through the lens of Trumpist rhetoric, which sees everything through the lens of the primacy of the imperialist interests of the United States and its exacerbated personal ambitions. Donald Trump, quite contrary to the image he projects, is not a peacemaker.

From the beginning of the war, and even before the Israeli aggression, Trump and the horde of reactionaries and warmongers who surround him and monopolize power in the United States, tried to inflame the conflict, betting on automatic alignment with Israel and the discourse of "containing Iran." However, the unfolding of events quickly revealed the limitations of this approach.

Iran's fierce resistance, its surprising fighting capacity, the power of its attacks, the massive counter-offensive launched against Israel, the images of wreckage in buildings in the capital, Tel Aviv, the attack on the US base, the resilience of political-military forces such as Hezbollah (Lebanon), Ansarullah (Yemen) and other groups of the Axis of Resistance have shown that the geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East is no longer exclusively dominated by the US and its allies. The Iranian response, despite Western bravado, was forceful and coordinated, revealing a military capacity that exposes the vulnerability of Israel and American bases in the region.

Faced with this, the Trump administration recognized the risk of an uncontrollable escalation. This is not a matter of sudden pacifism, but of pure pragmatism: a large-scale conflict could spiral out of control, affect strategic interests, and further seriously compromise the declining imperialist power of the United States, with inevitable negative repercussions for the political and social stability of the US itself.

The first few days of the war were enough to trigger a reaction in global markets. Oil prices skyrocketed, stock markets plummeted, and the specter of inflation returned to haunt major economies, including the United States. In imperialist circles, panic gripped the nation regarding the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. For a president who projects an image of efficient management and assures that America is "in charge," an economic crisis fueled by his own military decisions would be a political disaster.

Furthermore, the electoral calculation is undeniable. Trump knows that a considerable part of his support depends on the illusion of domestic prosperity. A prolonged conflict, with direct effects on consumers' wallets, could undermine his popularity and open space for the opposition to advance in the 2026 legislative elections.

Another element that cannot be ignored is the signals coming from Tel Aviv. Despite its traditional unconditional alignment with Washington, the Israeli government has suffered a severe military and moral blow, with evidence of its ineptitude adding to the effects of the unanimous condemnation by the sane part of humanity of the crimes it is committing against the Palestinians in Gaza.

The acceptance of the ceasefire, even with the aggressive rhetoric still ongoing, was also a necessity for the Israeli government, which needs to save itself from collapse.

Another key factor in understanding Trump's retreat is the geopolitical advance of China and Russia in the region. The Asian socialist giant, which had already been positioning itself as a mediator and defender of stability in the Middle East, gained political ground in the face of Western aggression. Moscow, in turn, strengthened its relations with Iran.

Trump knows that a prolonged and uncontrolled conflict would only accelerate the decline of the US and open even more space for strategic rivals. Despite the bellicose rhetoric, the American government faces concrete limitations. Decades of failed wars in the Middle East have left a legacy of fatigue, internal rejection of new military adventures, and strategic vulnerability. American bases in the region are within range of Iranian missiles, and the human and material cost of a direct conflict would be extremely high.

Trump, who markets himself as the "president of force," knows that starting a war whose consequences he cannot control would be politically suicidal. Therefore, despite the rhetoric, he was forced to back down.

It is crucial to understand that the ceasefire does not resolve the root causes of the Zionists' ongoing aggression against Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The war waged by Israel and the US against Iran remains latent. Geopolitical disputes, strategic interests, and regional ambitions continue to fuel a scenario of chronic instability.

The region is still far from lasting peace. Therefore, countries that strive for multipolarity, for a new world balance, peoples, and progressive movements must maintain a critical and vigilant perspective. True peace will not come from imperialist powers. Only the mobilization of peoples, the constant struggle for self-determination, justice, and peace can stop the criminal hand of imperialism and Zionism.