Afrasianet - Mohamed Mahmoud Al , Shaibani - In the European media landscape, the armistice between Iran andIsrael was not just a passing headline in breaking news coverage, but has become a central topic of reading and analysis, especially in analytic journalism such as Spain's El Pais, France's Le Monde and Germany's Der Spiegel.

Between editorials and opinion reports, the truce seemed like a magnifying mirror of a broader crisis of confidence in the nature of crisis management in the Middle East. These newspapers did not focus on scenes of destruction or the death toll, but rather on deconstructing the political symbolism of the timing of the truce, the language chosen by decision-makers, and the intertwined interests that pushed the parties to accept the ceasefire despite the apparent tension and heat of the scene.

While state media in some countries have been busy promoting rhetoric of "symbolic victory" or "mutual deterrence," European approaches have been cooler and more skeptical of the sustainability of the truce.

In many articles and analyses, the concept of "truce" has undergone a rigorous conceptual dissection:

•    Are we facing a real desire for de-escalation?

•    Or is it just a tactical break imposed by situational calculations?

European journalists not only recycled official statements, but went further, asking: Who has the keys to continuing this truce? Are the parties concerned genuinely willing to seize it as an opportunity for peace, or is it just a card in an open game of nerves?

A fragile truce without guarantees

French writer Alain Frachon (Le Monde) argues that  the ceasefire between Iran and Israel does not represent the end of the escalation, but rather an ambiguous truce that lacks any real guarantees.

Frachoun believes that this "temporary remission" hides behind it tensions that could be combusted at any moment, especially in light of the continuation of Israeli military operations and the parties' disregard for a serious diplomatic path.

For him, the absence of consensus on core issues, such as the nuclear issue and the situation in Gaza, makes the truce only a phased station in a conflict that is expanding and not receding, as the conditions for a real truce have not yet been met.

Spanish writer Angeles Espinosa (El País) considers the truce not to amount to a political initiative, but rather to contain an imminent explosion, describing it as "a fragile cover for a conflict whose roots interact deeply and are fueled by persistent hostile rhetoric."

Espinosa notes that Tehran views the truce as an opportunity to demonstrate its deterrent capabilities rather than as a concession to its regional ambitions, while Israel suffers from an internal erosion of trust due to security and political confusion.

She stresses that the absence of clear agreements and the lack of involvement of parties such as Hezbollah make this truce a fragile circumstantial measure that cannot be relied upon, noting that the major powers, led by the United States, lack a comprehensive plan that ensures that this military pause is transformed into a real political process, especially in light of the complexities of the Iranian nuclear file, and the lack of mutual trust between the two parties. 

In his article titled "Netanyahu and Trump against Iran... What if they were right?German columnist Stefan Kozmani (Der Spiegel) believes that the ceasefire between Iran and Israel did not come from sitting at the negotiating table or from prior planning, but was a direct response to US President Donald Trump's orders  calling for an immediate ceasefire from both sides.

The author highlights his concern about this military pause, which he describes as surprising, especially in the absence of real negotiating efforts or an active role for European parties, which makes this decision seem indefinitive, and therefore a return at any moment, to war and the continuation of instability, is inevitable.

French journalist Claude Gibal (senior editor of the international section of France Inter Radio) highlights the Iranian regime's steadfastness in the face of Israeli strikes and economic pressures, as the US strikes did not make a breakthrough in the regime's structure, and that the Iranian leadership succeeded in absorbing the escalation thanks to popular internal cohesion and measured responses.

However, Ghaipal cautions that this cohesion does not hide the fragility of Iran's economic and political structure, which makes the future of the regime dependent on the vicissitudes of the interior and foreign policies, especially what the United States will decide in the next phase.

On the other hand, German journalist Ronen Steinke (Süddeutsche Zeitung) focused on the procedural aspect of the truce, considering it a circumstance akin to a break of operations, rather than a gateway to a stable peace, as he explains that Iran, although it appears to be in a position of strength, suffers from internal pressures that force it to accept the truce temporarily, while Israel seeks to take advantage of the temporary cessation of operations to rearrange its security papers.

Steinke warns of the fragility of the existing calm, especially in light of the continued activities of regional non-state actors, such as Hezbollah and Tehran-allied militias, which have the ability to explode the situation again, noting that Western powers, despite celebrating the truce, do not have an integrated strategy to address the roots of the crisis, which makes the continuation of tension almost settled.

British writer Gideon Rushman (Financial Times) offers an approach that deeply questions the motives of the truce, arguing that it occurred as a result of international political pressure and does not reflect an actual consensus.

Rushman points out that the United States rushed towards calm for fear of its electoral repercussions, and not within a mature diplomatic vision, and describes the truce as a "geopolitical dictate" rather than an agreement stemming from negotiations, stressing that the two sides are still betting on achieving strategic gains rather than entering into a comprehensive settlement.

He points out that Israel has not come out with a decisive victory, while Iran is investing tension to assert its regional position, and that the conflict is not limited to the military aspect, but extends to an ideological and sectarian competition for influence in the region, and warns against ignoring the role of regional proxies such as Iran-backed militias that may explode the situation at any moment.

Qatar's Role and Trump's Choice

Italian journalist Gianluca Defoe (La Repubblica) offers a more cautious optimism approach to a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, seeing it as a potential stepping stone toward a sustainable calm if wisely exploited.

In his article titled "Iran-Israel Truce: Qatar's Role and Trump's Choice: How did a ceasefire come about?" Defoe notes that this pause in hostilities represents a rare breathing moment in a region exhausted by ongoing confrontations.

In particular, it highlights the hidden and effective role played by Qatar, through indirect mediation and creating a ground of trust behind the scenes, which allowed the opening of channels of communication that contributed to the crystallization of the calm.

Defoe believes that the US administration, specifically President Trump, has played a historic role in pushing the parties towards a ceasefire, not only in order to contain regional tensions, but also to register a political presence that enhances his image as an influential player on the international stage.

The truce has reflected positively on some economic fronts, including energy markets, making it achieve some immediate gains on more than one level.

Despite these positives, Defoe does not hide his concern about the deterioration of the situation in both countries, recalling that this calm is very important and even a rare opportunity that should not be wasted, calling on the international community to build on it, and turn it from a "circumstantial opportunity" to a mature diplomatic path leading to tangible results. 

Dimensional complex conflict

In a joint analysis published in El País, Spanish journalists Iker Cesdidos and Luis de Vega offered a critical view of the timing and circumstances of the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, describing it as an "arrangement imposed by necessity" rather than an initiative stemming from the parties' conviction or convergence of positions.

The agreement came in a tense context in which political and security considerations were mixed, with international warnings of a large-scale slide prompting parties to take a pacification step that does not necessarily reflect a radical shift in intentions or orientations.

They point out that Israel entered the truce burdened by confusion and internal pressure, after failing to make tangible gains, which fueled a general sense of disappointment and political pressure in Benjamin Netanyahu'  s government.In contrast, Tehran treated the truce as an opportunity to strengthen its propaganda discourse, relying on its network of relations with regional factions that gave it an effective leverage on its opponents.

The absence of any serious negotiating engineering and the exacerbation of ideological and sectarian divisions make the ceasefire a temporary and risky moment. It also highlights the general popular mood, where residents on both sides view the truce not as an achievement, but as a fragile time frame waiting for a new wave of violence.

They stress that continuing on this path requires more than just control of fire, but sincere political will, a redefinition of regional priorities, and the inclusion of peripheral parties in any potential dialogue. Without this, the truce will remain a temporary superficial solution that threatens to collapse at the first serious test.

In the end, the European scene confirms that the truce between Iran and Israel is only a temporary chapter in a long story of protracted conflict, and that the path to real peace still depends on political maturity and deep regional and international understandings that put the interest of peoples above ideological interests and military tactics.