By Wole Simon
Middle East Crisis analysis: Beyond the military exchanges and diplomatic maneuvering, several sticking troubles have repeatedly derailed negotiations among the US, Israel, and Iran. These encompass Iran’s uranium enrichment software, its improvement of advanced centrifuges, the demand for verifiable inspections of nuclear centres, and the question of sanctions alleviation.
Iran insists on an entire lifting of monetary sanctions as a precondition for any long-term settlement, while the US and Israel demand irreversible rollbacks of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and a cessation of its local proxy community.
Moreover, Iran’s ballistic missile application and its military assistance for groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria continue to be non-negotiable pink traces for Washington and Jerusalem. Until these middle problems are addressed, any ceasefire will stay fragile at best.
In my view, the current ceasefire was reached prematurely. Iran has not been militarily defeated, nor has it signalled any intention to back down. The Iranian regime still has its teeth to chew, and it has consistently established that it does not bow to strain or pressure easily.
Due to developing monetary pressure in the US and across international markets, the Trump administration may also have rushed to announce a ceasefire with Iran without making sure that Tehran was sufficiently weakened. If the US and Israel had sustained their military campaign against Iran for some months, critically dropping bombs and intensifying their focus on strategic military locations, Iran may have been begging for peace by now.
Rather, the ceasefire was declared at the same time when Iran stayed defiant and more aggressive than ever before, leaving the chance of the prospect of a peace deal to be reached in limbo. Iranians are experienced negotiators, and they know what they are doing by frustrating President Trump by taking so long to agree on a peace deal. This tactical and low negotiation by both may eventually lead to another round of confrontation, which I presume to be deadly and destructive.
Israel is clearly not happy with the current ceasefire, even though President Trump appears satisfied with it. This raises a fundamental question about the original war aims of the two allies. When the United States and Israel agreed to launch attacks on Iran, what were the terms of their understanding? Was there an explicit agreement that once the US achieved its war goals, the conflict would end, even if Israel had not yet achieved its own objectives? Or was the understanding that each ally would continue fighting until its respective war aims were fully met? The situation is deeply complicated, and one can almost feel the diplomatic headache taking shape.
The central problem is this: who actually owns the outcome of this war? If the United States decides to stop while Israel wants to continue, the alliance risks fracturing at a critical moment.
This leads to an even larger question: is this war project likely to succeed, or will it ultimately separate the United States from its traditional allies in the Middle East? The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman, have their own complex relationships with Iran.
While they fear Iranian expansionism, they also rely on stable energy markets and prefer to avoid a full-scale regional war. If the United States is seen as rushing into a premature ceasefire that leaves Iran still capable of bullying its neighbours, then the GCC states and Israel may begin to question the reliability of American security guarantees.
Conversely, if Israel continues to act unilaterally without US coordination, Washington could find itself dragged into a wider conflict in the region and abroad. Either scenario risks weakening the traditional US-led alliance structure in the Middle East.
The ultimate question remains: can President Trump, or any American leader, silence Iran permanently? Or will Iran continue to bully the GCC countries, Israel, and the United States through its network of proxies, missiles, and nuclear brinkmanship? The evidence so far suggests that Iran has not been beaten into submission.
The regime in Tehran has survived decades of sanctions, assassinations of its nuclear scientists, and even direct military strikes. What Iran fears most is not short-term military pressure but sustained, unified international action combined with a credible long-term deterrent.
A ceasefire that rewards Iranian defiance without addressing the sticking issues of its nuclear and missile programs only postpones the next confrontation. Until Tehran genuinely believes that continued resistance costs more than compliance, the cycle of escalation, ceasefire, and re-escalation will continue.
For now, the region remains suspended between war and peace. Military power alone has not produced a decisive outcome. Diplomacy alone has not delivered a lasting settlement. The world watches as negotiations continue, markets remain uneasy, and millions hope that leaders will choose stability over further escalation.
The lesson may be simple but uncomfortable: in modern conflicts, winning the war is often easier than winning the peace. And until the sticking issues are resolved, and until all parties agree on what victory actually means, the Iran crisis will remain in negotiations without end.