The achievement of a two-week ceasefire agreement between the United States of America (USA) and Iran can be evaluated as the beginning of a new and complex phase in the system of international relations. The temporary cessation of military confrontation, which lasted for over a month, is presented as an important diplomatic step that prevented escalation in the region. However, serious questions remain regarding the nature and prospects of this agreement. The main question is: is the ceasefire a tactical pause, or a strategic turning point?
If we look at the chronology of the conflict, it is possible to see a gradual increase in tension. In the initial phase, mutual accusations and limited military incidents were observed between the parties. Subsequently, these incidents escalated into large-scale military operations. The threat of a shift in the military balance in the region compelled international actors to intervene more actively in the process. And finally, the parties were brought to the negotiating table.
The achievement of the ceasefire indicates that both sides made certain strategic calculations. For the US, the main objective was to prevent uncontrolled escalation in the region. Iran, considering internal and external pressures, opted for a tactical retreat. From this perspective, it is difficult to give an unequivocal answer to the question of “who won, who lost.” In fact, while both sides gained short-term dividends, the long-term outcomes are still uncertain.
From a geopolitical perspective, this conflict could spur the formation of new realities. Traditional alliance models are observed to be shaken. In some cases, the possibility of allies changing positions and adversaries tactically converging comes to the fore. This, in turn, could lead to increased instability in the international system. The Realpolitik approach manifests itself more prominently in these processes.
Iran's internal political dynamics also demand special attention. The possibility of the conservative wing's positions weakening is being discussed. Reformist forces, on the other hand, might attempt to come to the forefront by utilizing this process. However, the specific characteristics of the Iranian political system cast doubt on these changes being rapid and radical. The issue of internal legitimacy will play a key role here.
The position of international actors is also in focus. Russia is trying to play more of a balancing role in this process. Moscow intends to preserve its influence in the region. China, approaching from the prism of economic interests, is interested in the restoration of stability. For Beijing, energy security remains a priority. From this perspective, China is trying to influence the process through diplomatic channels.
The decision for US and Iranian representatives to meet specifically in Pakistan is also not coincidental. Pakistan is regarded as a neutral platform both geographically and politically. This was an important step for fostering an environment of trust between the parties. From the perspective of diplomatic protocol, this meeting can be evaluated as the beginning of a new phase of dialogue.
Economic aspects, however, require separate analysis. The impact of the conflict on global energy markets is already being felt. Fluctuations in oil prices have created uncertainty in international markets. If the ceasefire is sustained, prices may stabilize to some extent. However, this could also be a short-term effect.
The issue of the security of the Strait of Hormuz carries special strategic importance. This route is one of the main arteries of global energy supply. Iran's ability to control this strait gives it additional geopolitical leverage. In the event of a ceasefire violation, risks in this region will increase again. This could have a serious impact on the global economy.
The issue of sanctions is also on the agenda. This ceasefire is not sufficient for Iran to escape sanctions. More extensive political agreements are required for this. The US position on this matter currently remains unchanged. However, the opening of diplomatic channels increases the likelihood of a softening in the future.
The international community once again observed Iran's military and political potential in this conflict. Iran demonstrated its influence as a regional power. At the same time, the country's weaknesses also came to light. This will affect the formation of future strategy.
Turkey attempted to pursue a balanced policy in this process. Ankara both put forward diplomatic initiatives and called for the preservation of regional stability. Turkey's role once again highlighted its regional leadership ambitions. European countries, on the other hand, acted more as mediators and observers. Their main concerns were energy security and migration risks.
Previously, it was thought that the global geopolitical balance would be determined by the war in Ukraine. However, attention has now shifted to the Middle East. The Iran factor has moved to the center of international politics. This indicates a change in global priorities.
Political factors within the US also influence this process. Donald Trump's political fate is being discussed in this context. His foreign policy course could bring a different approach to such agreements. This, in turn, could create a new phase in US-Iran relations.
Israel-Iran relations, however, still remain the riskiest direction. The strategic confrontation between these two countries continues. Although the ceasefire does not directly affect these relations, indirect effects are possible. The security architecture in the region is heavily dependent on these relations.
Consequently, the two-week ceasefire achieved between the US and Iran is more tactical in nature. Whether this agreement will transform into long-term peace is still questionable. Geopolitical dynamics continue to change. The formation of new alliances and the transformation of old relationships seem inevitable. Stability in the region, however, remains fragile. The future development of these processes will determine the main agenda of international politics.
Wars are also a game. Like the US-Iran war. As the great Mammad Araz said, who lost, who won in this game, who will regret it, I don't know...
Elnur AMIROV
