Ceasefire signals start ...
Page 1
Iranian officials have consistently argued that any halt must be tied to assurances against renewed aggression. While such thinking reflects a desire to avoid a return to hostilities or a prolonged “no war, no peace” situation, history offers a more cautious lesson. The 1994 assurances given to Ukraine, signed by Russia, the United States and Britain, ultimately failed to prevent conflict.
Deterrence, by contrast, rests on capability. During the current conflict, Iran imposed restrictions on movement through the Strait of Hormuz in response to the unlawful aggression. The result was instructive. It demonstrated that reopening the waterway by force would not be straightforward. Iran’s asymmetric capabilities altered the equation. That experience may now serve as a more credible form of guarantee than any written commitment.
The costs of the past forty days have been substantial. Iran has absorbed both material damage and psychological strain from the US-Israeli war. The prospect of escalation, particularly into attacks on infrastructure, would have significantly raised those costs. Under continued sanctions and financial pressure, recovery would have been difficult to sustain in the short term.
There is also a regional dimension that cannot be ignored. Given the largely air-based nature of the conflict and the geographic distance separating Iran from its adversaries, retaliation would likely have focused on assets in neighboring countries. Such a path would have risked entangling regional actors more deeply and complicating efforts to rebuild relations with them.
It is expected that, following a positive turn of events after a difficult period, Iran’s foreign policy will enter a new phase. This would pave the way for rebuilding what has been damaged and advancing the country’s development and people’s well-being, particularly given the upcoming diplomatic changes.