THE so-called “ceasefire” between the United States and Iran is less a triumph of diplomacy than a temporary pause forced upon aggressors who miscalculated.
When Washington and Tel Aviv launched their assault on Iran on Feb 28, they did so under the illusion – fuelled by Netanyahu and his hawks – that regime change would be swift, a walk in the park. Yet after more than a month of relentless bombardment, Israel’s war aims collapsed. Iran did not buckle.
Instead, it demonstrated resilience that exposed the hollowness of the Zionist project to eliminate the Islamic Republic, a project Israel has harboured for over four decades because Iran remains the most formidable bulwark against its dream of a “Greater Israel.”
The US, dragged into this war at Israel’s behest, revealed once again how its foreign policy is tethered to Israeli ambitions rather than its own national interest.
The language used by the US president during this campaign was chilling: threats to send Iran “back to the Stone Age” and declarations that “there would be no more civilization left” if Tehran resisted.
Such rhetoric, condemned even by mainstream commentators like Tucker Carlson and scholars across the political spectrum, underscores the moral bankruptcy of a superpower that mocks the very civilisational values it claims to defend. That these words were directed at a nation whose contributions to science, philosophy, and culture are foundational to human progress only magnifies the grotesque nature of this discourse.
Equally damning is the collapse of the international order. The UN Security Council convened only to condemn Iran, not the aggressors who waged war against it. Russia’s supplementary resolution was brushed aside, and the eventual ceasefire was brokered not by the UN but by Pakistan – a telling indictment of the UN’s irrelevance.
Meanwhile, Lebanon continues to be pulverised by Israeli strikes, even as Washington and Tel Aviv claim to honour a ceasefire with Iran. How can peace be meaningful when one aggressor continues its campaign of destruction unchecked?
The lesson is stark: the “big bullies” have been forced into a pause, not by principle or diplomacy, but by the shock of Iran’s resistance. Until Israel halts its attacks on Lebanon and the UN finds the courage to hold aggressors accountable, this ceasefire will remain a hollow gesture, a temporary lull in a war of domination that has yet to end.
What is most striking is the asymmetry of accountability. Iran is demonised for defending its sovereignty, while Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal and decades of occupation escape scrutiny.
The fixation on Iran’s supposed threat has long served as a diversionary tactic, shielding Israel from international censure. This war was not born of necessity but of ambition – an ambition to redraw the map of West Asia in line with Zionist fantasies, with Washington playing the role of enforcer.
The ceasefire, therefore, is not a peace agreement but a tactical retreat, a recognition that Iran cannot be subdued as easily as Iraq or Libya.
The broader implications are sobering. If the UN cannot restrain aggressors or even name them, then the international system has lost its moral compass. The precedent being set is dangerous: powerful states can wage wars of choice, devastate nations, and then step back under the guise of “ceasefire” without consequence.
For the people of Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine, this could be a continuation of violence by other means. For the world, it is a reminder that the so-called guardians of civilisation are willing to destroy it in pursuit of domination.
The ceasefire may silence the guns for now, but it cannot silence the truth: this was never a war of defence, but a war of domination. Iran has endured, Lebanon still bleeds, and the UN has once again stood by as an accessory to injustice.
(And at press time, the so-called peace talks in Islamabad had ended without any resolution.)
If peace is to mean anything, it must begin with accountability – an end to Israeli aggression, a rejection of US bullying, and a recognition that civilisations cannot be bombed into submission.
Until then, the so-called guardians of order remain exposed as architects of chaos.
In the end, the bullies have paused, but they have not repented – and the world must decide whether to remain complicit or finally confront them.
Dr Abdul Latiff Mohd Ibrahim is head of the Research and Publications Division at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.
