Here we go again!
Another ceasefire in a war between Iran and the United States that began 47 years ago when a ragtag gang of juvenile revolutionaries raided and occupied the American Embassy in Tehran and took its 66 diplomats hostage for 444 days.
The next clash came when President Jimmy Carter sent six helicopters into Iran to free the hostages, but had to accept a ceasefire to allow members of his failed mission to flee to safety, leaving behind the corpses of eight US servicemen.
The next clash, in April 1988, saw the US Navy sinking half of the Iranian Navy and forcing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to accept a humiliating ceasefire.
In between, the on-off clash continued with episodes of high tension punctuating periods of relative calm. Each ceasefire prolonged a war that neither side had the resolve to fight to the finish.
With that background in mind, it would be foolish to think that the latest two-week ceasefire might lead to anything like a lasting peace. As on previous occasions, both sides have declared victory. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says President Donald Trump has achieved all his objectives.
The war that started with Trump talking of regime change in Tehran ended with him calling for a two-week reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in collaboration with the regime in Iran.
Seen from the angle of his own political concerns, Trump acted wisely. On April 28, the 60-day free ride he has to pursue his "special military operation" ends, forcing him to seek the authorization of the Congress to continue the war -- something almost unlikely to be granted, especially when he would need to ask for an extra $200 billion to stay in the game.
Technically, the ceasefire gives him a chance to trigger another 60-day "special operation" if the two-week window to a lasting accord is shut.
Trump also has an eye on midterm elections in November, when his MAGA base seems to be on a downturn, partly caused by opposition to a war the aims of which have not been spelled out in a comprehensible way.
Not surprisingly, the truncated Khomeinist regime has also declared victory. Official media put it this way: "Iran's armed forces declare victory after US-Israeli armies are forced to surrender." Needless to say, we are not told where and how those surrenders took place, and to whom the US and Israeli armies surrendered.
But notice that the statement makes no reference to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an unpopular institution in Iran and yet now the actual holder of power in Tehran. Reference to "Iranian armed forces" may be an attempt by the IRGC chiefs to cast themselves as nationalists rather than Islamists. But it may also indicate that the IRGC has absorbed the regular army and ended the bicephal system created by Khomeini.
What seems certain is that the invisible "Supreme Guide," Mojtaba Khamenei, is already dead or so incapacitated as to be out of the decision-making circle. The other day, President Masoud Pezeshkian unwittingly hinted at that when he said he would raise key issues with the "Supreme Guide" if he meets him.
Iran's military rulers may be right in claiming victory, not because the regime has managed to survive, but also because wearers of caps have pushed turban-wearers into the background; a theocracy has morphed into a military outfit.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may also be seen as a loser because he reportedly wasn't even consulted about the deal that Trump made with Iran. Worse still, seen from Netanyahu's side, Israel as such may be a loser by losing the sympathy that most Iranians always had for the Jewish state, if only because they hated the Khomeinist regime.
If any side emerges from this tragic episode with some dignity, it is the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) bloc that bore the brunt of Iranian attacks in a war none of its members wanted.
However, GCC nations cannot pretend that business as usual can go on with a neighbor that spends more resources attacking you than hurting its avowed enemies. Trump's plans, albeit typically vague as usual, about joint management of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran are also unlikely to please the GCC, especially as one of its members, Oman, shares sovereignty over the crucial chokepoint.
The best guess at this point is that the latest ceasefire may not last as long as the previous one. It is not at all certain that Trump and Netanyahu have definitely abandoned the goal of changing the regime in Tehran. And it is almost certain that, drunk from its ascendancy within the Khomeinist ruling clique, the IRGC might not resist the temptation to bolster its revolutionary legitimacy by continuing the campaign of terror against Israel and the US presence in the region.
The core of what is known as "the Iran problem" is simple: the regime in Tehran must either become like other governments in the region or turn the whole region like itself. Thus, we are back to the question of regime change. Trump says that has already happened in Tehran. Fact is he came close, but no cigar.
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He graciously serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.
Gatestone Institute would like to thank the author for his kind permission to reprint this article in slightly different form from Asharq Al-Awsat.
