For all the hard work invested in trying to negotiate a lasting peace settlement, the latest upsurge in violence between Iran and the US does not bode well for the survival of their 60-day ceasefire, implemented last month. A key factor in both the Trump administration and the Iranian regime agreeing to the ceasefire was a profound sense of war weariness in both camps. For different reasons, they both want to see an end to the conflict, yet here it is, continuing.
US President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Tehran at the end of February appears to have been predicated on the basis that the war would be a relatively brief affair that ultimately resulted in the collapse of the Islamic Republic. The continuation of the conflict in July is therefore hugely inconvenient, not least economically, following a sharp rise in American energy prices. This could reflect negatively at the polls in the upcoming mid-term elections. Trump’s failure to bring the conflict to a speedy conclusion has prompted many to question his ability to deal effectively with global security threats, including from within his Republican party.
For Iran, further conflict only increases pressure on a leadership that, having suffered militarily, now needs to rebuild the country’s devastated economy. There are signs that the war’s domestic political fallout has deepened divisions between the more pragmatic politicians in Tehran (who want to defuse tensions with the West) and hardline supporters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who are ideologically opposed to striking any deal.
Increasing the pressure
There were pressing reasons why both sides agreed to a ceasefire, signing a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding setting out a framework for a permanent peace deal, but the arrangement was always going to face challenges, not least from the IRGC which believes that, by maintaining hostilities in the Gulf, it is simply increasing the political pressure on Trump. The latest upsurge in military action, with Iran attacking Gulf states after the US conducted fresh strikes against IRGC targets, only reflects the brittle nature of the original ceasefire deal.
At this week’s NATO summit in Ankara, Trump said the ceasefire deal was “over”. Is it? Or is this just another round of the tit-for-tat exchanges that have taken place sporadically since the ceasefire was originally implemented last month? Judging by the extreme rhetoric from both sides, it is hard to imagine progress being made towards a permanent peace deal in the coming weeks, even though US envoys want to keep channels of communication open.
