A U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran, announced on June 24, 2025, has brought a temporary halt to one of the most intense confrontations between the two regional rivals in decades. Yet beneath the veneer of calm, a complex web of mutual suspicion, clandestine operations and internal pressures on both sides threatens to unravel the fragile agreement. While leaders in Washington and Doha hail the truce as a first step toward de-escalation, analysts warn that its durability hinges on a series of contingent factors—ranging from covert proxy clashes to shifting political winds in Tehran and Jerusalem.
Early Signs of Strain
Almost immediately after the ceasefire took effect, each side accused the other of violations. Iran swiftly claimed that Israeli jets had skirted its airspace mere hours into the truce, prompting Tehran’s air defenses to respond with warning flares. In turn, Israel’s military generals pointed to multiple Iranian missile launches that struck peripheral military outposts. Though no large-scale retaliations followed, these tit-for-tat exchanges exposed lingering distrust.
Residents in cities on both sides described a tense atmosphere. In Tehran, shopkeepers reopened stores emptied by wartime orders, yet many remained glued to news feeds for any hint of renewed hostilities. In southern Israel, families returned home from temporary shelters, only to face blackout drills in case air-raid sirens sounded again. The brief but dramatic flare-up of accusations—even as official channels sought to project unity—underscored the shaky ground on which the truce stood.
Proxy Tensions and Covert Operations
Beyond direct strikes, a hidden battleground of proxy conflicts and clandestine operations has further undermined the ceasefire’s integrity. Iran’s regional affiliates—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthi movement in Yemen—remain prepared to strike Israeli or U.S. interests if Tehran’s own security is threatened. In recent days, U.S. naval vessels patrolling the Arabian Gulf reported drone incursions and the discovery of naval mines, suggesting that Houthi forces were probing maritime chokepoints as leverage.
Conversely, Israel’s intelligence services have intensified cyber-espionage campaigns aimed at monitoring Iran’s underground enrichment sites. According to military insiders, electronic intrusions and surveillance flights over Iran’s western mountainous regions continued covertly, despite public pledges to respect the ceasefire. These actions have fed Tehran’s narrative that Israel intends to wear down Iran through an attritional strategy—one that shifts the battlefield into shadows and secret corridors.
Political leadership on both sides played a central role in exacerbating the truce’s fragility. In Washington, President Trump’s initial triumphalism was soon followed by an uncharacteristic public rebuke of Israel, accusing his closest Middle East ally of “over-enthusiasm” and warning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “stand down.” The outburst, broadcast live from the NATO summit, was interpreted in Jerusalem as a signal that U.S. support might waver if further strikes occurred.
Netanyahu, under pressure from hard-line cabinet ministers and military chiefs frustrated by constraints, shifted tone overnight—publicly reaffirming respect for the ceasefire while privately instructing defense forces to remain on high alert. In Tehran, President Masoud Pezeshkian celebrated what state media hailed as a “great victory,” but the hard-line Revolutionary Guard Corps viewed any easing of hostilities as premature. Behind closed doors, senior commanders pressed for harsher domestic measures, leading to mass arrests of suspected dissidents accused of collaborating with Israel’s Mossad.
Economic Leverage and Oil Market Jitters
The specter of renewed conflict has also rippled through global markets. In the days preceding the truce, oil prices spiked as traders feared a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—through which nearly 20 percent of the world’s petroleum passes. Although the ceasefire reduced the immediate threat of an Iranian naval closure, Tehran retains the option of deploying fast-attack boats, naval mines and drone swarms to disrupt shipping lanes if it perceives the agreement to be one-sided.
On Tel Aviv’s financial district, business leaders voiced cautious optimism that calm would prevail long enough for trade and tourism to rebound. Yet banking insiders warned that any return to hostilities—even localized skirmishes—could trigger rapid capital flight and a sharp devaluation of regional currencies. The interplay between military brinkmanship and economic pressure thus adds another layer of complexity to preserving the truce.
While the United States and Qatar took center stage in brokering the ceasefire, other regional actors harbor reservations about the deal’s long-term viability. Saudi Arabia, which had quietly supported U.S. mediation, remains suspicious of any détente that does not curb Iran’s ballistic missile program. Meanwhile, Turkey and Egypt have offered to host renewed diplomatic talks but condition their involvement on provisional guarantees regarding Iranian enrichment facilities.
The United Nations Security Council has convened emergency sessions to discuss mechanisms for monitoring compliance, including re-deploying IAEA inspectors to Iran’s underground sites. Yet Tehran’s recent parliamentary vote to suspend cooperation with international inspectors casts doubt on whether such proposals can be implemented swiftly. With diplomatic rifts widening, the prospect of a more comprehensive peace treaty appears distant.
A Precarious Path Forward
As both sides publicly commit to upholding the truce “as long as the other does,” the burden of responsibility for maintaining calm falls unevenly. Israel, wielding superior air power and advanced surveillance capabilities, shoulders the expectation of restraint. Iran, facing debilitating economic sanctions and domestic dissent, sees the ceasefire as an opportunity to regroup—but remains wary of ceding leverage. Meanwhile, the United States, eager to claim a diplomatic victory, must balance its role as mediator with its strategic alliance obligations.
In the coming weeks, key indicators—such as the resumption of direct U.S.-Iran nuclear dialogue, the withdrawal or redeployment of proxy forces, and the real-time reporting by independent observers—will determine whether this ceasefire moves beyond a temporary pause. For now, the truce stands on precarious ground, its fate resting on a complex calculus of military posturing, political will and regional power plays. As both capitals prepare for a delicate dance of compliance and coercion, the world watches to see whether this fragile armistice can survive the tests of mistrust and momentum.
(Source:www.tbsnews.net)
Early Signs of Strain
Almost immediately after the ceasefire took effect, each side accused the other of violations. Iran swiftly claimed that Israeli jets had skirted its airspace mere hours into the truce, prompting Tehran’s air defenses to respond with warning flares. In turn, Israel’s military generals pointed to multiple Iranian missile launches that struck peripheral military outposts. Though no large-scale retaliations followed, these tit-for-tat exchanges exposed lingering distrust.
Residents in cities on both sides described a tense atmosphere. In Tehran, shopkeepers reopened stores emptied by wartime orders, yet many remained glued to news feeds for any hint of renewed hostilities. In southern Israel, families returned home from temporary shelters, only to face blackout drills in case air-raid sirens sounded again. The brief but dramatic flare-up of accusations—even as official channels sought to project unity—underscored the shaky ground on which the truce stood.
Proxy Tensions and Covert Operations
Beyond direct strikes, a hidden battleground of proxy conflicts and clandestine operations has further undermined the ceasefire’s integrity. Iran’s regional affiliates—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthi movement in Yemen—remain prepared to strike Israeli or U.S. interests if Tehran’s own security is threatened. In recent days, U.S. naval vessels patrolling the Arabian Gulf reported drone incursions and the discovery of naval mines, suggesting that Houthi forces were probing maritime chokepoints as leverage.
Conversely, Israel’s intelligence services have intensified cyber-espionage campaigns aimed at monitoring Iran’s underground enrichment sites. According to military insiders, electronic intrusions and surveillance flights over Iran’s western mountainous regions continued covertly, despite public pledges to respect the ceasefire. These actions have fed Tehran’s narrative that Israel intends to wear down Iran through an attritional strategy—one that shifts the battlefield into shadows and secret corridors.
Political leadership on both sides played a central role in exacerbating the truce’s fragility. In Washington, President Trump’s initial triumphalism was soon followed by an uncharacteristic public rebuke of Israel, accusing his closest Middle East ally of “over-enthusiasm” and warning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “stand down.” The outburst, broadcast live from the NATO summit, was interpreted in Jerusalem as a signal that U.S. support might waver if further strikes occurred.
Netanyahu, under pressure from hard-line cabinet ministers and military chiefs frustrated by constraints, shifted tone overnight—publicly reaffirming respect for the ceasefire while privately instructing defense forces to remain on high alert. In Tehran, President Masoud Pezeshkian celebrated what state media hailed as a “great victory,” but the hard-line Revolutionary Guard Corps viewed any easing of hostilities as premature. Behind closed doors, senior commanders pressed for harsher domestic measures, leading to mass arrests of suspected dissidents accused of collaborating with Israel’s Mossad.
Economic Leverage and Oil Market Jitters
The specter of renewed conflict has also rippled through global markets. In the days preceding the truce, oil prices spiked as traders feared a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—through which nearly 20 percent of the world’s petroleum passes. Although the ceasefire reduced the immediate threat of an Iranian naval closure, Tehran retains the option of deploying fast-attack boats, naval mines and drone swarms to disrupt shipping lanes if it perceives the agreement to be one-sided.
On Tel Aviv’s financial district, business leaders voiced cautious optimism that calm would prevail long enough for trade and tourism to rebound. Yet banking insiders warned that any return to hostilities—even localized skirmishes—could trigger rapid capital flight and a sharp devaluation of regional currencies. The interplay between military brinkmanship and economic pressure thus adds another layer of complexity to preserving the truce.
While the United States and Qatar took center stage in brokering the ceasefire, other regional actors harbor reservations about the deal’s long-term viability. Saudi Arabia, which had quietly supported U.S. mediation, remains suspicious of any détente that does not curb Iran’s ballistic missile program. Meanwhile, Turkey and Egypt have offered to host renewed diplomatic talks but condition their involvement on provisional guarantees regarding Iranian enrichment facilities.
The United Nations Security Council has convened emergency sessions to discuss mechanisms for monitoring compliance, including re-deploying IAEA inspectors to Iran’s underground sites. Yet Tehran’s recent parliamentary vote to suspend cooperation with international inspectors casts doubt on whether such proposals can be implemented swiftly. With diplomatic rifts widening, the prospect of a more comprehensive peace treaty appears distant.
A Precarious Path Forward
As both sides publicly commit to upholding the truce “as long as the other does,” the burden of responsibility for maintaining calm falls unevenly. Israel, wielding superior air power and advanced surveillance capabilities, shoulders the expectation of restraint. Iran, facing debilitating economic sanctions and domestic dissent, sees the ceasefire as an opportunity to regroup—but remains wary of ceding leverage. Meanwhile, the United States, eager to claim a diplomatic victory, must balance its role as mediator with its strategic alliance obligations.
In the coming weeks, key indicators—such as the resumption of direct U.S.-Iran nuclear dialogue, the withdrawal or redeployment of proxy forces, and the real-time reporting by independent observers—will determine whether this ceasefire moves beyond a temporary pause. For now, the truce stands on precarious ground, its fate resting on a complex calculus of military posturing, political will and regional power plays. As both capitals prepare for a delicate dance of compliance and coercion, the world watches to see whether this fragile armistice can survive the tests of mistrust and momentum.
(Source:www.tbsnews.net)