Iran / USA / Israel agreement: A Ceasefire already doomed? Geopolitical analysis

The ceasefire concluded between Iran, the United States, and Israel is not a classic peace agreement. It is a tactical instrument, used by each actor to consolidate its position before the next phase.

Three incompatible strategic rationalities

• 🇺🇸 controlled de-escalation: avoid a regional war + contain nuclear proliferation

• 🇮🇱 neutralization doctrine: permanently prevent Iranian capability

• 🇮🇷 strategic resilience logic: survive, sanctioned but intact

No structural space for convergence.

Nuclear issue: the real core of the conflict

The ceasefire does not address the central variable: Iran’s nuclear capability.

• For Israel, it is an existential threat

• For Iran, it is a guarantee of regime survival

Therefore, non-negotiable in the short term.

Systemic dimension: Strait of Hormuz

Iran retains a major lever: the ability to disrupt global energy traffic.

• A tool of asymmetric deterrence

• Direct pressure on Western and Asian economies

The conflict extends far beyond the regional framework.

Proxies: Iran’s strategic depth

The ceasefire does not truly cover:

• Hezbollah (Lebanon)

• Iraqi militias

• Houthis

Yet this is precisely where Iran projects its power, meaning the conflict can continue without direct war.

Israel and the doctrine of preventive war

Israel operates according to a constant logic: strike before the threat becomes irreversible.

A ceasefire that freezes the current situation is therefore strategically unacceptable in the long term.

The United States between withdrawal and credibility

Washington seeks to:

• avoid military entanglement

• maintain its strategic credibility

A major contradiction: exiting the conflict without leaving a strengthened Iran.

Iran: a regime strengthened by the crisis

Paradoxically, the conflict:

• consolidates internal power

• marginalizes opposition

• legitimizes militarization

Classic “rally around the flag” effect.

Why the agreement is unstable

This is not a resolution agreement but a temporary risk-management arrangement.

None of the structural determinants are addressed:

• nuclear issue

• regional security architecture

• ideological rivalry

Scenarios

Scenario 1: Resumption of open conflict

Renewed direct strikes Israel ↔ Iran

High probability if:

• rapid nuclear advancement

• major proxy attack

Potentially uncontrollable escalation.

Scenario 2: Prolonged “grey zone” conflict

Maintenance of the official ceasefire, but:

• indirect strikes

• cyberattacks

• covert operations

Dominant form of contemporary conflicts and unstable stabilization.

Scenario 3: Limited strategic transaction

Partial agreement:

• (temporary) nuclear freeze

• sanctions relief

Transactional logic, not transformative. Fragile but rational solution.

Scenario 4: Internationalization of the conflict

More direct involvement of external actors:

• Gulf monarchies

• global powers

Shift toward a systemic crisis with major impact on energy and global trade.