When the guns fall silent in the Middle East, it often does not mean that peace has begun.
Sometimes it is just a breathing space for the next big showdown.
This is precisely the picture we face today.
At first glance, the war seems to have stopped. There is talk of a ceasefire. Diplomatic channels are being reopened. Washington is marketing a “victory” narrative to its own public. Tel Aviv is trying to keep alive the thesis that it has inflicted heavy damage on Iran. Tehran, on the other hand, is presenting its survival as a psychological and political advantage.
But the truth is much harsher.
In this war, no one has really won.
Let's be even more precise:
All sides are trying to cover up their strategic weaknesses by hiding behind the fog produced by their own propaganda apparatus.
For the US, the issue is clear.
Washington has once again paid the price of substituting a show of force for strategy in a process in which it went in with confidence in the size of its military capacity. If in the first 72 hours you are unable to break the command and control backbone of the Iranian regime, the fact that you have started the war does not give you the upper hand; on the contrary, it is a declaration that you have lost the initiative. Because from that moment on, the rhythm, scope and intensity of the conflict will be determined not by you, but by the resistance capacity of the other side.
That's exactly what happened.
The US put forces on the ground but failed to consolidate the political outcome.
He made tactical moves but failed to turn them into strategic gains.
It made the noise of victory but could not build a lasting balance behind that noise.
This is why today's picture is not of an American victory, but of a controlled retreat, embellished with communications engineering.
The situation is no different on the Israeli front.
The Netanyahu administration thought it could dominate the long-term security equation with short-term military reflexes. However, state wisdom and electoral wisdom are not the same thing. The reflex to buy time through war by leaders stuck in domestic politics sometimes gives their countries a few days of room for maneuver, but often generates strategic costs that can be carried for years.
This is precisely the risk Israel faces today.
The moral and diplomatic cost of the war in Gaza was already heavy. The new front opened under the Iranian heading has increased this bill even more. Military capacity may have been preserved. Some targets may have been hit. Instant deterrence messages may have been sent to regional rivals. But all this is not enough to make Israel's medium and long-term security more robust.
On the contrary.
Regional isolation is deepening.
International legitimacy is eroding.
And every “tactical success” risks a new “strategic encirclement”.
For states, it is not just about hitting.
The challenge is to establish a safer geopolitical balance after the strike.
Today, it is not possible to say that Israel has achieved this.
What about Iran?
The most common mistake here is to mistake the survival of the regime as a “victory”.
No, no, no.
Surviving is not winning.
Today, the Iranian regime is capitalizing on the strategic blindness and overconfidence of its rivals, presenting the fact that it has not collapsed as a success story. But this is no success; it is merely a breathing space for a regime that has bought time. And more importantly, the real owner of this breathing space is not the regime, but the Iranian people, who continue to be crushed under all this destruction with great wisdom.
The Iranian people who live under oppression, bear the economic costs, bear the psychological burden of the war, and yet show everyone how much the regime's social consent has eroded...
They paid the real price.
If the regime, on the other hand, misreads today's picture, that is, if it sees this outcome as an opportunity to accelerate its nuclear program, to build up its ballistic capacity, to refinance its proxy power networks, and to more recklessly encroach on the region's fragile balances, today's “not losing” will be a harbinger of tomorrow's much more severe fractures.
Because sometimes states are not defeated in war;
But he loses the future by drawing the wrong lessons of war.
This is the real question for Iran:
Will it make peace with the world and try to maintain its current position?
Or will ideological stubbornness turn its relative advantage into a greater strategic risk?
If it opts for the second option, it would weaken the prospects for lasting peace for Iran.
Unfortunately, the equation before us today is not the equation of “peace”.
This is an equation of “deferred reckoning”.
There is a deep mistrust between US demands and Iranian terms. There is a serious mismatch between the Israeli government's security priorities and regional reality. There is a chronic rift between the internal structure of the Iranian regime and the rational commitments it can make to the outside world.
It is not easy to produce lasting peace in such a situation.
At best, a sustainable ceasefire is possible.
But even that is no guarantee.
Because almost all of the actors at the table are structures that are worn out in domestic politics, whose capacity to generate confidence in foreign policy has eroded, who are used to feeding on crisis and who will not hesitate to be “whiny” when necessary.
Therefore, no matter in whose favor the balance is struck, the attempt to upset that balance will always come from the other side.
As a result
What we see in the Middle East today is not the end of the war, but the change of form of the war.
The bullet can stop.
The missiles may stop for a while.
Leaders can make victory speeches.
Diplomats can set up a table.
But if the strategic threat remains, or even grows in some areas, then there is no real solution.
It is highly likely that only for the time being time has been purchased.
And buying time sometimes looks like an achievement for governments.
But in the wrong hands, then it becomes the most expensive defeat.
This is what is happening in the Middle East today.
The current situation is not peace, but an interregnum.
For the United States: A crisis of prestige.
For Israel: Legitimacy erosion.
For Iran: A time-buying move that risks a social explosion.
For now, the destruction wrought by the war has stopped.
But the threat has not gone away.