‘Iran-Israel ceasefire only a tactical break within a broader civilisational confrontation’: Seyed Hadi Sajedi

TEHRAN

An analysis of the recently declared ceasefire between Iran and Israel is incomplete without a deep understanding of the civilisational, geopolitical and security-based dimensions of this conflict. The critical question is whether this ceasefire marks the end of a crisis or merely represents a temporary, tactical pause in a deeper conflict. And if the roots of this confrontation lie in ideological and civilisational layers, what meaningful interpretation can we assign to the notion of a ceasefire?

To answer this, one must differentiate between an “operational pause on the battlefield” and the “resolution of strategic contradictions”. According to leading theorists in security studies, security is a multilayered construct in which states operate at various levels of threat, rivalry and cooperation. Based on this perspective, the Iran–Israel relationship is not merely a tactical conflict but one of existential threat—a form of fundamental negative security that emerges from two competing visions of regional order and the philosophy of power.

The recent clash marked the first wide-scale direct confrontation between Iran and Israel, initiated officially by Israel under the pretext of preventive self-defence, as outlined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. While the conflict may appear to have ended with a ceasefire, a closer reading of events suggests that the ceasefire was less a sign of sustainable balance and more the result of fragile equilibrium and tactical decision-making.

The ceasefire was declared after the US overtly entered the war by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. Following this move, President Trump shifted his rhetoric, declaring it a major achievement and insisting that the time for peace had come. However, Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against the American military base in Al Udeid, Qatar, radically altered the tone of the American leadership. In his first public response following Iran’s counterattack, Trump notably refrained from acknowledging the strike and instead fiercely criticised US media outlets that had downplayed or questioned the success of his assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Simultaneously, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with President Vladimir Putin in Russia. Strategically speaking, these developments represent a pause in active warfare aimed at recalibrating conflict dynamics, not peace in the classical sense.

A vital part of understanding the ceasefire lies in grasping the conflicting identities of Iran and Israel. What elevates this conflict beyond a territorial or political dispute is its civilisational and ideological nature. Inspired by an anti-colonial and Islamic worldview, Iran views Israel not as an ordinary state but as a symbol of imperial domination, occupation and the continuation of the colonial project in the heart of the Islamic world. Concepts such as “global arrogance” and “the eradication of the Zionist regime” emerge from this ideological framework.

Conversely, Israel represents the modern West, founded upon secularism, liberalism and humanism. It embodies a dual identity: on one hand, a strategic outpost of the US-led modern world order, and on the other, an ethno-religious project based on the return of the Jewish people to their “promised land”, with apocalyptic expectations centred on Armageddon. Hence, Israel defines its very existence through “guaranteed strategic superiority” in the region, a superiority that was seriously called into question during the recent conflict.

Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that the current ceasefire is neither peace nor a sign of de-escalation. Rather, it is a tactical intermission within a broader civilisational confrontation, rooted in two opposing visions of global order, humanity, identity and power. Whether through kinetic aggression, targeted assassinations, sabotage, economic coercion or information warfare, this conflict is set to persist.

Structurally, the war revealed vulnerabilities in Iran’s air defence system. Open corridors in the western provinces, deficiencies in UAV detection and successful cyberattacks on vital services illustrated that Iran’s multilayered security architecture requires significant reconstruction. Moreover, the war exposed the continued activity of infiltration networks within decision-making and operational levels of the security apparatus.

However, despite these challenges, social cohesion within Iran notably increased during the conflict. Even outspoken critics of the political establishment rallied behind the leadership, expressing support for the system’s resolve in standing up to a foreign aggressor who had violated Iranian territory.

Israel’s failure to achieve its predefined objectives, such as the destruction of Iran’s nuclear industry, the dismantling of its missile infrastructure and fomenting public discontent aimed at toppling the Iranian regime stands among the most significant outcomes of the conflict.

Iran not only launched retaliatory missile strikes against the largest US airbase in West Asia, but also carried out over 20 waves of successful drone and missile attacks on Tel Aviv, Haifa and other Israeli cities—the heaviest occurring minutes before the ceasefire took effect. These attacks demonstrated that Iran’s missile industry had not only survived the war, but had become more precise and resilient compared with the early days of the conflict.

Despite strong US support, Israel emerged from the conflict with a strategic and reputational crisis, for which many have blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is not unrealistic to predict that although the ceasefire may hold and superficial calm may persist between the two nations, Netanyahu will face severe internal political turmoil as a consequence of its perceived failure.

The author is faculty member at the University of Tehran.