Tehran: In a dramatic turn of events, a ceasefire between Iran and Israel appeared to take hold early Monday, after nearly two weeks of escalating conflict that rattled the Middle East and global markets. Brokered informally with international support and announced publicly by President Donald Trump, the truce marked the most significant pause in hostilities since the outbreak of violence.
According to TRTworld.com, just before the ceasefire’s original implementation deadline of 4 am Tehran time, Israel launched a final round of air strikes against Iranian positions in western Iran. With both sides having exchanged one final round of fire, the guns fell silent—at least for now. Hours earlier, following the US attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure using bunker-busting GBU-57 munitions launched by B-2 Spirit bombers, Iran launched a retaliatory missile strike late Sunday on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, home to the largest US military installation in the region and the nerve center of CENTCOM’s command operations.
The attack, codenamed “News of Victory,” was swift and sharply limited. Despite targeting a US base, it was not a cry for escalation; it was a carefully calibrated message: We are responding, but we are not provoking war. Iran claims it fired 14 missiles—the same number the US reportedly used in its attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz last week. Of those, Tehran says three missiles successfully impacted the Qatari base. Qatar’s defense ministry, in contrast, reported that only seven missiles were launched, with just one breaching air defenses.
The attack’s geography is particularly surprising. Qatar is not just another Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) state—it is Iran’s closest partner in the Arab world. The two countries share the world’s largest natural gas field and cooperate on everything from energy policy to regional diplomacy. By choosing to strike Al Udeid, Iran made a calculated bet: that Qatar would understand the gesture as a signal to Washington, not a threat to Doha.
Iranian officials justified the attack by pointing to Al Udeid’s centrality to US military operations in the Middle East. However, the reality is more layered. According to multiple regional sources, Iran likely provided backchannel notice of its intentions to Qatari officials, who in turn facilitated the evacuation of US personnel. In this context, the base was the safest place for Iran to send a message with minimal risk of American casualties—and, crucially, without igniting full-scale war.
President Trump seemed to confirm this calculation. “Very weak attack,” he posted on social media. “Iran gave early notice. I thank them for that. Now is the time for peace.” Despite this measured response, Iran faced diplomatic blowback. Every Arab state in the Gulf swiftly condemned the attack, including Saudi Arabia, which expressed full support for any action Qatar may deem necessary. Qatar issued a rare public rebuke, condemning the attack on its sovereignty while subtly pointing the finger at Israel as the source of regional instability.
In a statement echoing Oman’s, Qatari officials declared themselves shocked by the strike but emphasized that Israel’s initial strikes on Iranian territory had lit the current fuse. Yet, Qatar positioned itself not just as a victim of regional escalation, but also as a potential peacemaker, proposing a ceasefire plan between the two states. GCC states supported this idea, understanding that further provocation could endanger the region’s economic lifelines, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, through which a third of the world’s seaborne oil flows.
The diplomatic overture gained traction quickly. Within hours, President Trump announced a temporary ceasefire between Iran and Israel, congratulating both governments for avoiding further bloodshed and declaring this moment a win for peace in the Middle East. It was a striking declaration, particularly after weeks of heightened tension.
Yet, Iran’s response was cautious. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top negotiator and now one of its lead crisis diplomats, stated on X that if Israel halts its attacks on Iranian targets by 4 am local time, Iran has no plans to respond to the most recent Israeli operations. The ceasefire may be holding for now, but its foundations are brittle at best. The underlying disputes, both old and newly minted, remain unresolved.
The 12-day conflict has generated fresh geopolitical wounds, hardened nationalistic sentiments, and disrupted already fragile regional alliances. Neither Israel nor Iran is prepared to accept culpability, and neither side trusts international mechanisms to guarantee security. No third party enjoys enough legitimacy to enforce such a peace. The idea of a ceasefire is viewed with skepticism in Tehran, as many believe that temporary truces merely allow Israel to regroup, restock missile supplies, and reinforce air defenses—only to resume operations against Iran, similar to the short-lived ceasefires in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria.
Even beyond these obstacles lies the deeper cause of the conflict: Iran’s nuclear program. The current crisis was catalyzed by Israel’s covert attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, amid fears of enrichment capacity expanding beyond thresholds deemed tolerable by Tel Aviv and its Western allies. Tehran, in turn, views uranium enrichment on its own soil as a sovereign right. If the purpose of this escalation was to force Iran to abandon that capability, it appears to have failed.
Having paid a heavy price, Iranian officials are even less likely to concede now. Iran fought hard, said a senior regional diplomat, not to give up enrichment, but to preserve it. The US, caught between Israeli pressure and Iranian defiance, has so far sidestepped this core issue. Until it is addressed, many believe, the region will remain on a knife’s edge.
Indeed, Iran’s leaders have made it clear that while conflict with the US has been compartmentalized, the war with Israel is far from over. Tehran is reportedly preparing for a prolonged campaign of low-intensity engagement—a war of attrition fought through missile salvos, cyberattacks, and proxy operations. The message behind Iran’s limited retaliation was not just restraint; it was strategic clarity: although fully allied with Israel, the US should no longer engage in the duel of these gladiators.
For now, the missiles have stopped flying. But in this region, silence is rarely peace—it is only the pause between storms.