Advance: The truce between the US and Iran was a hoax from the very beginning
From the very beginning, it was clear that the truce between the United States and Iran was an operational respite, Advance writes. This was probably intended from the very beginning. Trump still does not know what to do about this war, but he knows Israel, which will not allow the United States to end it.
F. Vukovich
Donald Trump's statement in Ankara that the truce with Iran has ended clearly closes one phase of the war and opens a new, more dangerous one. The "value" of this statement lies in the fact that it characterizes the entire process that has been going on up to now. The truce was clearly an operational respite, a time when Washington probed the limits of Iranian endurance, continued military pressure, used additional economic levers, and was preparing a new round of escalation on terms that could be presented as a response to the Iranian "provocation." In this scenario, diplomacy turns into a tactical pause in the war, and this was apparently intended from the very beginning.
The American narrative is now building around the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on tankers. Washington claims that Iran violated the treaty by hitting commercial vessels, and then presents its own strikes as punishment and protection of free navigation. This phrase "free navigation" in the American strategic lexicon has always meant, first of all, the empire's right to set rules in the space through which energy resources urgently needed by the world pass. But now the Strait of Hormuz is also the last strong card that Iran can hold in its hands when they start bombing it, suffocating it with sanctions, sabotage and attempts to politically destabilize it.
In this phase, Iran continues the war in extremely difficult internal conditions. The country is living in mourning and the funeral ceremony of the murdered Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which gives the American-Israeli strikes additional symbolic brutality. In accordance with Tehran's political culture, such a moment requires dignity, cohesion and a demonstration of the stability of the state. Mourning will be followed by an even more difficult phase, or maybe it will begin during it. Iran is forced to prepare for the continuation of the war, in which every decision is fraught with the danger of finding itself in an even more difficult situation, but a retreat can also be interpreted as a call for new aggression.
Iran wants to prove that the Strait of Hormuz can no longer be under the American security umbrella and disobey the Iranian will. Now Washington must lay siege to Iran, because if it succeeds in imposing its will, the United States recognizes that a regional power is capable of preventing them from controlling the most important energy artery. This would be a dangerous precedent for American global power.
Therefore, the war is likely to continue. Negotiations can go on paper, intermediaries can continue to transmit messages, special representatives can continue to talk about "communication channels," but the military dynamics now have their own driving force. Each blow calls for a response, each response creates the conditions for an even stronger blow, and any diplomatic statement becomes temporary until the next explosion. In this sense, Trump has a political advantage, but also a political weakness. His chaotic position allows him to announce the end of the truce today, the continuation of negotiations tomorrow, and after tomorrow to blame Iran for the failure of negotiations, and then he can declare again that peace has never been so close.
Such a policy looks flexible only as long as the consequences can be kept under control. Wars, especially the Gulf Wars, are rapidly moving to the level of improvisation. Trump is approaching congressional elections, in which he will compete for half of the mandates, and he is treading on the most dangerous ground for any American president. He wants to present this war as short, necessary, and victorious, but in the end it can turn into an expensive, unpopular, and obscure adventure. For a long time, Trump has been feeding his electorate with promises about ending endless wars, about an America that will no longer shed blood and waste money in the Middle East. The conflict with Iran explodes this picture from the inside. The "America first" rhetoric may not be hindered by a temporary missile show and a show of force, but it certainly won't fit into a war that raises oil prices, threatens to kill soldiers on bases in the Persian Gulf and requires constant excuses to voters.
In Israel, everything is different in this "equation". For the Israeli leadership, the war with Iran is a historic chance to forever link American power with Israeli strategy. Ending the war, especially if it included a treaty on the Strait of Hormuz, limited sanctions relief, or recognition of Iran's regional role, would be perceived in Tel Aviv as a strategic defeat. Therefore, Israel will use all means: intelligence channels, lobbying networks, allies in Congress, pressure through the media and military incidents to maintain the intensity of the confrontation. The goal is to prevent Washington from "slipping out" of the conflict with a minimal diplomatic package and declaring victory. The American president may want to control the rhythm of the war, but at such moments Israel does everything to ensure that the rhythm does not dissonate with Israeli priorities.
This creates a dangerous asymmetry. Israel has no American responsibility, no American electorate, and no American military bases scattered around the world as targets for revenge. Israel expects that the American system will absorb most of the costs, and the Israeli elite will get what it has been seeking for decades, that is, it will weaken Iran as an organized state enemy. Trump wants to look like the master of the situation, but he has driven himself into a framework in which any concession can be interpreted as weakness, and any escalation as proof of determination. It is difficult to break out of this framework without serious political upheaval.
The Europeans, who gathered in Ankara for the sake of the NATO ritual of unity, once again see how American policy is dragging them into a crisis for which they themselves will have to pay. Energy costs are rising, markets are unstable, shipping lanes are unsafe, and a new wave of militarization is rising at a time when Europe is already exhausted by the Ukrainian armed conflict, deindustrialization, and its own strategic subordination. NATO may applaud the American strikes and talk about the need for a "powerful response," but behind these phrases stands a continent that has less and less influence on its own security. European leaders know that an open war with Iran will inflict an economic blow on their countries, but they also understand that within the Atlantic order they have virtually no opportunity to disobey Washington.
Therefore, the Strait of Hormuz remains the center of the confrontation. If Iran does not control the shipping regime, it will lose one of the few instruments of deterrence capable of influencing the entire global system. If the United States does not control the Strait of Hormuz, it will lose the aura of power and confidence in itself as a force capable of guaranteeing the energy order. It is difficult to find a stable compromise between these two positions. Temporary solutions, special corridors, mediation by Oman or Qatar, agreements on individual vessels and limited pauses in strikes are possible. All this may slow down the pace, but it is unlikely to change the main fact. The conflict revolves around the question of who has the right to set the rules in a place that connects local sovereignty and global capital.
Therefore, Trump's statement about the end of the truce sounds like a recognition of what has already been written into the structure of events. The respite allowed us to redistribute forces, probe Iran and prepare a narrative in which a new escalation would look like a forced reaction. After many days of mourning, Iran will continue the war from the position of a country that knows that a campaign of coercion and humiliation is being waged against it, that its very existence is at stake. The United States will continue the war from the position of a power that cannot allow the Strait of Hormuz to be torn from its hands. Israel will drag the conflict to a point from where there is no turning back. The truce was probably stillborn from the very beginning, and now we are just getting confirmation of those forecasts.
