By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare
A Sudden Halt to the 12-Day Conflict
(News of The South) – President Donald Trump announced a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran, signaling an intended end to the intense “12-day war” that had rapidly escalated and drawn in the United States. The announcement, disseminated via his Truth Social platform, outlined a phased implementation over a 24-hour period, with Iran initiating the ceasefire, followed by Israel, culminating in what was termed an “Official END” to the conflict.
While President Trump hailed the agreement as a testament to the “Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence” of both nations, initial reactions from Tehran and Jerusalem were notably mixed and at times contradictory. Iranian state television, for instance, referred to it as a “Trump-claimed” ceasefire, even as it simultaneously reported ongoing Israeli strikes on Iranian cities, including Tehran, Urmia, and Rasht. This immediate discrepancy suggested that the agreement was not universally or smoothly accepted from the outset. Israeli officials largely maintained silence, with the military and Prime Minister’s office initially declining immediate comment, though a senior Israeli minister later expressed support for what was described as Trump’s “bold and decisive” Middle East move. Further complicating the narrative, a senior Iranian official initially denied any ceasefire proposal, viewing US and Israeli remarks as a “deception”. However, other reports indicated that Iran had indeed agreed to the ceasefire following persuasion from Qatar. This complex diplomatic dance, characterized by public posturing contrasting with behind-the-scenes agreements, underscored the inherent fragility of the cessation of hostilities. This abrupt halt follows a period of heightened direct military confrontation, marking a significant, albeit potentially precarious, shift in the Middle East’s volatile geopolitical landscape.
II. The Ceasefire: A Diplomatic Breakthrough Amidst Escalation
President Trump’s declaration of a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE” for the “12 DAY WAR” specified a phased implementation over 24 hours. According to his social media posts, Iran was to initiate the ceasefire, with Israel following at the 12-hour mark, leading to an “Official END” to the conflict at the 24-hour point. This announcement represented a notable shift from Trump’s earlier, more aggressive stance, where he had stated he was “not looking at a ceasefire” but rather a “real end” to the conflict, potentially involving Iran “giving up entirely”. The eventual agreement on a ceasefire, rather than an outright capitulation, suggests a pragmatic adjustment in the US approach. This change in posture likely stemmed from a strategic assessment following the successful, albeit limited, US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and Iran’s subsequent measured response. The “very weak response” from Iran to the US strikes may have provided an opportunity for the Trump administration to declare a successful counter-strike and pivot to a ceasefire, thereby avoiding a potentially wider and more costly conflict. This highlights a transactional element in the diplomacy, where military action created an opening for a negotiated pause.
The agreement was notably facilitated by Qatar, a nation with a well-established history of mediating in Middle Eastern conflicts. President Trump personally engaged with Qatar’s Emir, and Vice President JD Vance coordinated specific details with Qatar’s Prime Minister, ultimately succeeding in persuading Iran to agree to the terms. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry subsequently expressed “regret” over the escalating tensions and urged all parties to exercise restraint. Qatar’s successful mediation in this high-stakes conflict further solidifies its position as a crucial diplomatic player in the Middle East. Its ability to maintain channels with diverse, often antagonistic, actors—including the US, Israel, and Iran—provides a unique and valuable platform for de-escalation. This enhances Qatar’s regional influence and potentially positions it for future mediation efforts in other complex conflicts, such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of this mediation also underscores a broader trend: regional actors, rather than solely external powers, are increasingly vital for resolving Middle East crises.
Despite Trump’s celebratory tone, praising the “Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence” of both nations, immediate official responses from Israel and Iran were initially cautious or contradictory. Israel’s military and the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially offered no public comment. Concurrently, Iranian state television’s characterization of a “Trump-claimed” ceasefire, alongside reports of continued Israeli strikes on Iranian cities, painted a picture of a complex reality on the ground. A senior Iranian official initially denied any ceasefire proposal, asserting that Iran would continue fighting and viewed US and Israeli remarks as “deception”. However, as noted, Sky News and Reuters later reported that a senior Iranian official confirmed the agreement after Qatari persuasion. This initial divergence in public statements may indicate internal divisions within Iran or a strategic delay in public acknowledgment, perhaps to manage domestic perceptions or maintain negotiating leverage. Such discrepancies highlight the intricate and often opaque nature of high-level diplomacy during periods of conflict.
III. The “12-Day War”: A Rapid Escalation of a Long-Standing Proxy Conflict
The recent “12-day war” between Iran and Israel represents a dramatic escalation of what has historically been characterized as a “proxy conflict” or “Cold War”. For decades, Iran has supported various regional non-state actors, including Lebanese Shia militias like Hezbollah and Palestinian groups such as Hamas, while Israel has countered by backing Iranian rebels, conducting airstrikes against Iranian allies in Syria, and assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. This long-standing tension is deeply rooted in Iran’s post-1979 revolution stance, its championing of the Palestinian cause, and Israel’s perception of Iran’s rhetoric, proxy activities, and nuclear ambitions as an existential threat.
The proxy conflict escalated to direct confrontations in 2024, culminating in a full-scale “Iran-Israel war” in June 2025, which saw direct involvement from the United States. The key events of this rapid escalation unfolded as follows:
Table 1: Key Events of the 12-Day Iran-Israel War (June 2025)
Date
Event Description
Key Actors Involved
Significance/Impact
June 13, 2025
Israel initiates direct conflict with surprise bombardments of Iranian military and nuclear sites.
Israel, Iran
Marks the start of the “12-day war” and a shift from proxy to direct confrontation.
June 13-21, 2025
Israel continues airstrike campaign, degrading Iran’s air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, damaging nuclear facilities.
Israel, Iran
Significant casualties reported (950+ Iranian, 24+ Israeli deaths). Intensifies conflict.
June 22, 2025
US directly enters conflict (“Operation Midnight Hammer”), striking three Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan) with “bunker-buster” bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
US, Iran
US targets Iran’s nuclear program, causing “monumental damage.” Risky decision for Trump.
June 23, 2025
Iran launches limited retaliatory missile attack on US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. US was pre-warned; no casualties.
Iran, US
Iran’s “very weak response” signals a desire to de-escalate, providing an “off-ramp” for the US.
June 23, 2025
President Trump announces “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran.
US, Israel, Iran, Qatar (mediator)
Abrupt halt to hostilities, facilitated by Qatari mediation, aiming to end the conflict.
During this period, Israel’s military campaign was effective, significantly degrading Iran’s air defenses and offensive missile capabilities and causing damage to its nuclear enrichment facilities. Casualties mounted on both sides, with Human Rights Activists reporting over 950 Iranian deaths, including 380 civilians, and more than 24 Israeli deaths. The United States’ direct intervention on June 22, 2025, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved striking three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—with “bunker-buster” bombs and Tomahawk missiles. Satellite images revealed “monumental damage” and craters at Natanz, while the deep underground damage at Fordo was unassessable but presumed severe. This decision was a risky one for President Trump, who had campaigned on avoiding costly foreign conflicts but also vowed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
In response to the US strikes, Iran launched a limited retaliatory missile attack on the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on June 23, 2025. The US was reportedly warned in advance, and no casualties were reported, leading President Trump to dismiss the attack as a “very weak response”. Iran’s statement that the volley matched the number of US bombs dropped, and its targeting of areas outside populated zones, suggested a deliberate intent to de-escalate. This calculated, symbolic retaliation allowed Iran to demonstrate a response for domestic audiences and uphold its deterrent posture,
without provoking a wider, more devastating US counter-response. By pre-warning the US and ensuring no casualties, Iran effectively provided an “off-ramp” for the US to declare a successful counter-strike and pivot towards a ceasefire. This illustrates Iran’s strategic pragmatism, prioritizing regime stability over an unwinnable direct confrontation with a superior military power, especially after its nuclear facilities sustained significant damage.
The US military intervention, while aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation and supporting Israel’s security objectives, reinforces its role as the primary security guarantor in the region. However, this involvement also inherently carries the risk of drawing the United States into protracted regional conflicts, as demonstrated by this “12-day war”. Critics argue that such interventions, particularly those leading to the “shattering” of states without clear plans for democratic transition, can paradoxically contribute to “decades of instability” and a “harvest of chaos” rather than fostering sustainable peace. This highlights a complex dynamic where decisive US military action, while achieving immediate tactical goals, may inadvertently perpetuate cycles of instability and deepen anti-American sentiment in the long term.
IV. Underlying Tensions: Nuclear Ambitions and Regional Proxies
At the core of the Iran-Israel conflict lies Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel views as an existential threat. Israel’s insistence on halting Iran’s uranium enrichment is non-negotiable, a stance underscored by reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating Iran’s continued progress in its nuclear activities, which adds a profound sense of urgency to the situation. The recent US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites were explicitly aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, reflecting the severity of this concern for both the US and Israel.
Another significant driver of regional instability is Iran’s extensive network of regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Gaza. These proxies are perceived by Israel as strategic tools employed by Iran to compel it to defend on multiple fronts simultaneously, thereby diverting attention and resources from Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The evolution of some of these proxy groups into political parties, a transition actively encouraged and nurtured by Iran, further complicates the regional political and security landscape. The intertwined nature of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its proxy warfare strategy is a critical observation. Iran’s use of proxies appears to be a sophisticated, multi-pronged approach designed to create strategic depth and reduce Israel’s capacity to act unilaterally against Iran’s nuclear program. This implies that even with a direct ceasefire, the underlying strategic challenge posed by Iran’s multi-faceted approach to regional influence remains, making the current cessation of hostilities inherently conditional on these unresolved issues.
The conflict is also fueled by deep-seated mutual animosity and rhetoric. Israel frequently accuses Iran of harboring genocidal intentions, while Iran, in turn, accuses Israel of conducting genocide in Gaza. This profound ideological and political antagonism makes the pursuit of a lasting peace exceptionally difficult. The broader strategic landscape sees this conflict as part of a larger struggle for influence in the Middle East, with Iran actively expanding its spheres of influence and Israel seeking to counter this expansion, sometimes through the formation of alliances with Arab powers.
V. Geopolitical Ripple Effects: Economic and International Implications
The “12-day war” had immediate and far-reaching geopolitical and economic ripple effects. Global energy markets experienced significant volatility, with oil prices surging by 9% due to fears of supply disruptions, particularly from attacks on Iran’s South Pars gas field. A prolonged conflict carries the risk of higher global inflation. Furthermore, the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Tehran, a narrow channel through which a fifth of global oil exports pass, could lead to oil prices “skyrocketing worldwide,” creating a financial windfall for Russia that could further finance its war in Ukraine.
Beyond energy, the conflict impacted the global economy in various ways. While defense stocks, such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies, saw potential for increased demand, regional stock markets exhibited divergent trends. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange edged upward on optimism for defense contractors, whereas Saudi Arabia’s TASI index dipped due to fears of wider regional spillover. A peace deal, conversely, could potentially unlock Iran’s vast oil reserves, easing global supply constraints, though significant political risks would persist.
The international response to the conflict was notably “fractured,” exposing deep divisions among major global powers. China and Russia condemned the US strikes, while the United Nations and European nations largely called for de-escalation. This “fractured geopolitical context” significantly hampered the ability to marshal a collective diplomatic effort, making broad international consensus “next to impossible”. This reflects a significant shift in the landscape of Middle East diplomacy, where the traditional model of great power intervention as the primary driver of peace is increasingly ineffective due to global geopolitical fragmentation.
The conflict also had direct implications for other global flashpoints. Ukraine, in particular, expressed alarm, fearing that crucial US military aid might be diverted to Israel, a scenario that the Kremlin reportedly “counts on” to its strategic advantage. Kyiv-based analysts viewed the US refocusing its attention on the Middle East as a “geopolitical catastrophe” for Ukraine. This highlights the profound interconnectedness of global conflicts, particularly concerning resource allocation and strategic attention from major powers like the US. A prolonged or renewed conflict in the Middle East would inevitably divert US military, financial, and diplomatic resources away from other critical theaters, such as Ukraine. This creates a strategic advantage for adversaries like Russia, potentially prolonging or intensifying other conflicts, and underscores the “zero-sum” nature of global attention and resources, where one crisis can exacerbate another far away.
In the absence of a unified global response, the importance of regional diplomacy became more pronounced. There is a growing recognition that without regional diplomatic initiatives led by “swing states” like Saudi Arabia, the conflict risks spiraling out of control. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and other Gulf states condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation, with Saudi Arabia notably refusing to allow its airspace to be used for military operations, signaling its strategic caution and neutrality. This indicates a significant shift in the landscape of Middle East diplomacy. The diminishing effectiveness of traditional external mediation, due to global geopolitical fragmentation, points to a growing necessity for regional powers, particularly “swing states” with diversified relationships, to take greater initiative in fostering dialogue and collective security mechanisms. Their neutrality and ability to engage with all parties offer a more viable path to de-escalation and stability, suggesting a future where regional security frameworks, built on mutual trust and cooperation among Middle Eastern states, might be more effective than externally imposed solutions.
VI. Challenges to a Lasting Peace: Lessons from History
Ceasefires, by their very nature, are often fragile and temporary suspensions of hostilities rather than permanent settlements. Historical examples from the Middle East underscore this inherent fragility. During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, an initial UN-brokered ceasefire collapsed amid mutual accusations of violations before a second ceasefire ultimately held. More recently, the 2023-2025 war in Gaza and Lebanon starkly highlighted the “impotence of the international community” and major powers to decisively intervene and halt the devastation. This historical pattern suggests that merely stopping the fighting does not equate to achieving enduring peace.
For a ceasefire to be effective and sustainable, international practices have established several core elements that typically need to be addressed in formal or informal agreements. These elements are crucial for managing the cessation of hostilities and building confidence between warring parties.
Table 2: Core Elements of International Ceasefire Agreements
Element
Description
Importance for Durability
Timing of Commencement
Specifies the exact date and time the ceasefire takes effect.
Ensures clarity and avoids ambiguity regarding when hostilities must cease.
Identification & Definition of Prohibited Acts
Clearly outlines what actions are forbidden (e.g., firing, troop movements, propaganda).
Prevents misinterpretation and provides a basis for identifying violations.
Separation of Armed Forces
Delineates ceasefire lines, buffer zones, and withdrawal routes for combatants.
Reduces direct contact and the risk of accidental or intentional clashes.
Verification, Supervision, & Monitoring (M&V)
Establishes mechanisms (e.g., third-party observers, technology) to ensure compliance.
Provides objective information, builds trust, and allows for rectification of violations.
Repatriation of Prisoners of War
Addresses the exchange or release of captured personnel.
A humanitarian and confidence-building measure that can foster goodwill.
Duration (if temporary)
Specifies the agreed-upon length of the ceasefire.
Provides a clear timeframe for the cessation of hostilities, allowing for further negotiations.
Codes of Conduct
Guidelines for behavior to strengthen compliance and reduce tension.
Promotes disciplined adherence and reduces provocations.
Safety & Protection of Civilians
Measures to ensure the security and well-being of non-combatants.
Upholds international humanitarian law and reduces human suffering.
Interim/Final Security Arrangements
Plans for long-term security beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities.
Addresses underlying security concerns to prevent future conflict.
Central to the durability of any ceasefire is a robust monitoring and verification (M&V) mechanism. M&V seeks to provide accurate, reliable, and timely information about compliance, helping to rectify violations and restore adherence. These mechanisms typically involve a combination of actors, including third parties such as the United Nations and regional bodies, military personnel with technical expertise, civil society organizations, and even local communities. The integration of technology, such as drones, cameras, acoustic sensors, and satellite imagery, has become increasingly vital for improving the reach and quality of monitoring, providing accurate real-time data, and reducing risks for human observers. Given the deep distrust between Iran and Israel and the history of ceasefire violations, the effectiveness of this “complete and total ceasefire” will heavily depend on the establishment and adherence to a robust M&V mechanism. Without transparent and objective monitoring by trusted third parties, accusations of violations could quickly unravel the agreement. The reliance on technology can enhance reach and data quality, but human engagement is also crucial for confidence-building and dispute resolution. The lack of immediate public details from either Israel or Iran regarding the specifics of such a mechanism raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of the ceasefire.
Despite the immediate cessation of hostilities, numerous obstacles remain to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace. Deep-seated mutual distrust and fundamentally divergent strategic goals between Iran and Israel are significant barriers. The ceasefire does not address the core issues that fuel the conflict, such as Iran’s nuclear program or its support for regional proxies, which Israel considers non-negotiable existential threats. Furthermore, internal political dynamics, exemplified by the initial contradictory Iranian responses to the ceasefire announcement, highlight the complexities that can undermine agreements.
Historical precedents in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict demonstrate that partial agreements or temporary truces often fail to achieve sustainable security if fundamental issues remain unresolved. Past peace efforts, such as the Oslo Accords, ultimately collapsed due to factors like the expansion of Israeli settlements, the erosion of Palestinian governance capacity, and the empowerment of extremist voices on both sides. These “tinderboxes and paradoxes,” as they are sometimes termed, do not disappear over time but rather become more entrenched and difficult to resolve. The declaration of an “end” to the war, while halting immediate military hostilities, does not equate to a lasting peace or resolution of the underlying conflict drivers. The “12-day war” was an escalation of a long-standing proxy conflict. Without a comprehensive diplomatic framework that addresses Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its regional activities, and Israel’s security concerns, this ceasefire is merely a pause. History shows that temporary truces often lead to renewed cycles of violence if fundamental “tinderboxes and paradoxes” are not resolved. The current ceasefire, while preventing immediate catastrophe, might simply reset the conflict to an earlier, less direct, but still volatile, stage.
VII. Outlook: The Road Ahead for Regional Stability
The ceasefire between Iran and Israel, while a welcome de-escalation from direct military confrontation, remains inherently fragile given the profound animosities and unresolved core issues that precipitated the conflict. The initial contradictory reactions from various Iranian officials underscore the challenges of securing a unified and consistently committed front for peace.
A lasting peace in the Middle East necessitates sustained, comprehensive diplomatic efforts that extend far beyond merely ceasing fire. This includes addressing Iran’s nuclear program through verifiable mechanisms and finding pathways to manage its regional influence without resorting to military action. The fragmentation of global diplomatic consensus, as evidenced by the disparate international responses to the recent conflict, highlights the increasing importance of regional actors. Initiatives led by influential “swing states” like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, focused on fostering dialogue and establishing a collective security framework, offer a pragmatic path forward. Such a framework could be built upon principles of peace, respect for sovereignty, non-interference, and non-proliferation, potentially drawing inspiration from models like the European Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE).
This ceasefire, while brokered by the US, implicitly acknowledges the limitations of a purely unipolar approach to Middle East security. The growing influence of regional “swing states” and the calls for a regional security framework suggest a move towards a more multipolar regional order. In this emerging paradigm, external powers may still play a significant role, but sustainable peace will increasingly depend on the willingness and capacity of Middle Eastern states themselves to engage in dialogue, build trust, and establish their own collective security mechanisms. This marks a potential turning point where regional actors assume greater agency in their own security architecture, moving away from sole reliance on external guarantors.
While the “12-day war” has ended, the underlying “proxy conflict” persists, and its root causes remain unaddressed. The path to genuine, enduring stability in the Middle East is long and fraught with obstacles, requiring a profound willingness from all parties to overcome mutual distrust and prioritize a shared future over historical grievances and competing hegemonic ambitions. The true success of this ceasefire will be measured not merely by the absence of immediate hostilities, but by its ability to pave the way for meaningful, long-term dialogue and a fundamental shift towards a more collaborative regional security architecture.
Comments
About Author
