Afrasianet - Hassan Nafaa - The country that declared war on Iran, citing doubts about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, is the same country that is waging a genocidal war in Gaza, and the same country whose prime minister has been issued arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court.
On 13/6/2025, the Zionist entity decided to launch an all-out war on Iran, in an atmosphere characterized by conspiracy and deception. After 12 days of heavy fighting that almost turned into a full-scale regional or global war, a ceasefire resolution was reached, but in an atmosphere of uncertainty and uncertainty.
Because the situation in the region was different at the end of this war, compared to what was the case before, it is natural to try to understand the reality of what happened in the region during that short and dramatic period, and to ask whether this war brought about fundamental changes in the existing balance of power between the various main actors.
A few weeks after his arrival in the White House, President Donald Trump issued a stern ultimatum to Iran to choose between entering into negotiations with his administration aimed at reaching an agreement that guarantees the peacefulness and transparency of its nuclear program, or in an armed confrontation that will inevitably end in the destruction of this program.
Because Iran chose the path of indirect negotiations through Omani mediation, of which five rounds have already been held, and it was agreed to hold a sixth round that was scheduled to be held in Muscat on Sunday morning, 15/6, and Trump himself issued statements confirming that it is on the right track, and even about to lead to an agreement that satisfies all parties, I imagined that the specter of war had disappeared, at least for the duration of the negotiation, but both the entity and the United States had something to do. Other.
Forty-eight hours before the sixth round of these negotiations was agreed to begin in the Omani capital, Muscat, Israel announced an all-out war on Iran. Because Trump blessed this war and asserted that he knew in advance of it, his actions suggested that he himself participated in the strategic deception plan that preceded it and used the negotiations as a tool to plot it.
The war declared by the entity at dawn on Friday 13/6 was not born of the moment, but it turned out that planning for it was in full swing for a decade, and that its goal was not limited to destroying Iran's nuclear program, but extended to include the overthrow of the Iranian regime itself, as evidenced by the participation of 200 warplanes in an opening strike that coincided chronologically with a huge intelligence operation, carried out by hundreds of agents who were recruited to launch large-scale sabotage operations, aimed at causing total chaos in the country.
It is true that this strike did not bring down the regime, but it did lose its balance for some time. Because he was able to quickly restore his balance, things began to turn in another direction, and thus gradually became in a position to make bursts of missiles that proved their ability to penetrate multi-layered air defense systems, and then their destructive power increased over time and caused serious damage to many vital installations and facilities deep inside the entity, in an unprecedented precedent in its history, which created a degree of balance. In the course of the war, it opened the door to the possibility of it turning into a long-term process of attrition for the entity, rather than a blitzkrieg as he had hoped.
When it became clear that the Israeli warplanes, despite claiming to have been able to fully control Iranian airspace, became unable to destroy the fortified nuclear facilities, Netanyahu began to beg for direct American intervention in the war, to which Trump finally responded after a period of hesitation, and then issued orders to the American strategic bombers to carry out the required task, and when he finished it, he demanded that Iran admit defeat and sign the instrument of surrender, which of course it rejected, and even threatened to respond to it by striking all bases and interests. American in the region. Here, the war began to take a very complex turn, with dire consequences for all parties involved.
The Zionist entity, which initiated it, has become unable to resolve it by knockout, and has begun to fear that it will turn into a long-term war of attrition that it cannot afford or win.
The Trump administration, which has accepted to lend a helping hand to Israel, was unwilling to continue to engage directly in a war that could turn into a regional or global war, otherwise losing its electoral base, which rallied around slogans such as "America First" and rejected the approach of "regime change by force."
Iran, which has been subjected to war, may be ready to fight a long-term war of attrition against Israel, but it is not ready to engage in an open military confrontation with the United States, otherwise it will have chosen the path of suicide and taken a path that only achieves the interests of Netanyahu, who spared no effort in his attempts to drag the United States to participate with him in a direct war against Iran.
In such a context, conditions for finding a way out to stop the war are gradually maturing. Israel has an interest in stopping it to avoid entering into a war of attrition, and Iran and the United States also have an interest in stopping it, to avoid engaging together in a direct military confrontation that they do not want. But the question that remained perplexed was who shouted first and asked for a ceasefire, and about the best scenario for managing a face-saving final exit scene for all conflicting parties.
There is no doubt that it was the entity that first asked to stop the war, when it realized that the United States had decided to be satisfied with what it had done and would not indulge further in the war of mutual punches, and that the only alternative available to it was to accept a long-term war of attrition.
Several reports suggest that Ron Dreamer, Netanyahu's strategic adviser, may have conveyed Israel's desire for a ceasefire to Whitkov, Trump's special envoy, who in turn called the emir of Qatar and asked him to contact Iranian officials to seek their opinion and work to convince them to agree, which he did.
Because Iran seemed keen to be the author of the last strike, because the entity initiated the first strike, and at the same time keen to respond to the US strike in a way that does not provoke it, the features of the "exit scenario" that everyone followed in amazement began to crystallize: a missile strike on the American Al-Udeid base, notified by the United States and Qatar in advance, followed by an announcement by Trump himself confirming the acceptance of the ceasefire by the conflicting parties. It is true that the agreement almost collapsed due to the keenness of Both Iran and Israel agreed to deal the last blow to the adversary before the ceasefire went into effect, but Trump intervened forcefully and effectively to prevent Netanyahu from sabotaging the agreement at the last minute.
Each side can find something they can lean on to boast of their ability to win. Iran can say that it is the victorious party, because the war ended without enabling the parties that launched or participated in it to achieve the goals it sought, especially since its regime has not fallen, is still able to continue its nuclear program, and has a missile arsenal that enables it to defend itself and continue to develop its weapons program successfully.
Netanyahu can claim to have removed an "existential threat" and eliminated Iran's nuclear and missile programs, or at least permanently weakened them, and Trump can claim that he succeeded in "making peace through force" and that he was the only person capable of participating in the war, deciding a ceasefire and imposing it on everyone at the same time. But the most important question: What comes after the ceasefire?
Now that the ceasefire has entered into force, it is natural for each party to seek to limit the losses it has suffered and the achievements it has been able to achieve, and at the same time to try to conduct a careful review of its previous positions and decisions, in order to draw lessons learned, in the light of the indisputable facts highlighted by the war, which can be presented as follows:
The first fact concerns the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. Because of the refusal to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a nuclear-weapon State that is not subject to inspection and monitoring could have waged a war of aggression against a signatory to the Convention and thus be subject to inspection and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, under the pretext that the latter "may one day contemplate" the construction of a nuclear weapon. By enabling non-nuclear states to enjoy the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, it means that it is better not to engage in this regime than to survive and continue in it, which explains the Iranian parliament's decision to suspend Iran's membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The second fact revolves around the correlation between the recent war between Iran and Israel and what is currently happening in the Palestinian arena. The same State that has declared war on Iran, under the pretext of doubting the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, is waging a war of genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people whose land it occupies, and the same State whose former Prime Minister and Defence Minister has been subject to arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.
The third fact revolves around the future of the relationship between Iran and the Zionist project. After the recent war of aggression launched by the Zionist entity against Iran, Iran has become, for the first time in its history, a major party in the armed conflict with the Zionist project in the region.
Fact Four: It revolves around the lesson learned from Iran's steadfastness in the latest confrontation, despite the sanctions imposed years ago. This confrontation proved that relying on self-capabilities, especially in the field of armaments, is the only way to protect national and national security and enable it to join the Renaissance, without which Iran would not have been able to repel the Zionist aggression against it, and therefore self-reliance is the development model that all Arab countries must emulate.