SAEDNEWS: A two-week Iran–U.S. ceasefire, brokered with Pakistan’s mediation, stopped Israel’s campaign against Iran. The plan failed, boosting Iran’s position, while Israel allegedly seeks to undermine the truce amid rising U.S. public support for peace.
According to the political section of Saed News Agency’s analytical website, citing Al Jazeera Net, a two-week ceasefire has temporarily led to a partial halt in the conflict between Israel and the United States on one side and Iran on the other. According to some analyses, this confrontation has not achieved outcomes that an experienced diplomat could have secured in a short, few-hour meeting. In practice, the Strait of Hormuz, which remained open even before the war began, has now returned to normal conditions, with the difference that Iran’s role and influence in this equation appears to have become more prominent.
However, the regional situation remains unstable. Israel is reportedly inclined to weaken or even dismantle the ceasefire, as the war is defined as an Israeli-driven project. From this perspective, Tel Aviv sought to push Washington toward implementing a “quick and decisive strike” strategy, in which the immediate elimination of Iran’s strategic capabilities would, according to its designers, create more effective control over regional energy and security dynamics. Yet Israel’s objectives were not limited to this; the ultimate goal, beyond containing Iran’s nuclear program, was defined as weakening or even toppling Iran’s political structure and thereby establishing regional hegemony in West Asia. In contrast, the ceasefire framework is described as being based on Iran’s ten-point plan, which Donald Trump reportedly described—without full endorsement—as a “practical basis for negotiations.”
At a conceptual level, this plan is relatively coherent, but for the United States it is seen as a significant retreat and likely crosses Israel’s red lines. One of its key elements is the demand to end ongoing wars in the Middle East. In addition, it proposes a return to the JCPOA framework regarding the nuclear issue, an agreement that was abandoned by the Trump administration in 2018.
Within this framework, broader regional conflicts are interpreted through a fundamental logic: a view in which Israel opposes the formation of an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty and also stands against regional governments that support armed resistance to achieve national sovereignty.
In political discourse, some analyses frame the strategic objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government within the concept of a “Greater Israel.” In this interpretation, it refers to the rejection of an independent Palestinian state and the absence of fixed, internationally recognized borders for Israel. Within Israeli political currents, some hardline figures such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, allies in Netanyahu’s coalition, have advocated in their rhetoric for expanded Israeli control over parts of Lebanon and Syria, as well as long-term dominance over Palestinian territories under former British mandate definitions.
On the other side, certain evangelical Christian groups in the United States—sometimes linked in political analysis to Donald Trump’s voter base, as well as figures such as former U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee—reference biblical texts about the land “from the Nile to the Euphrates” as a divine justification for supporting Israel. While described in the analysis as extreme or unrealistic beliefs, it is argued that such ideas exist in reality and influence policymaking circles in the White House. From this perspective, Israel’s strategy is interpreted as regime change in any country resisting the idea of “Greater Israel.”
Since then, the Middle East has been involved in a series of escalating tensions and wars, forming part of a broader project aimed at the “systematic cleansing” of the region. Alongside earlier conflicts in Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, a parallel process of pressure and confrontation against Iran is now underway. In this narrative, all these developments are presented as interconnected parts of a single plan: the erosion and collapse of states and institutions that could obstruct the realization of the “Greater Israel” concept.
This does not imply that the United States lacks independent calculations or initiatives, but at the regional level Israel is seen as pursuing a form of hegemony that is increasingly explicit. Benjamin Netanyahu has also, in recent statements, suggested a vision in which Israel becomes a “regional and in some areas even global power.” Meanwhile, the United States continues to pursue global dominance, while Donald Trump is described as acting primarily through an economic, profit-oriented logic. He has repeatedly expressed interest in exploiting Iran’s oil resources, according to the analysis.
In this narrative, the war is largely portrayed as having been initiated and designed by Netanyahu, who, together with the head of Mossad, traveled to Washington to present the plan to Donald Trump. Trump is described as having been influenced by rapid political calculations, despite doubts from U.S. intelligence assessments regarding claims of a “one-day decapitation strike” model, compared by critics to previous U.S. operational patterns in Venezuela.
As also noted by The New York Times, discussions in the White House were reportedly not fully satisfactory. Netanyahu is portrayed in this account as presenting overly optimistic scenarios of regime change that did not align with U.S. intelligence estimates. Nevertheless, Trump—under pressure and influence from various political and ideological circles, including Christian Zionist groups and several political and business figures—ultimately moved quickly toward adopting this approach.
By Tuesday evening, Trump was reportedly perceived as steering the world toward a major global confrontation. However, this image is now being reassessed, with some analysts suggesting that he was instead seeking an exit strategy from the crisis, in which Pakistan is said to have played a mediating role.
In this context, while Trump publicly claimed that Iran had requested a ceasefire, another narrative suggests that he himself was also strongly seeking a truce. The role of Pakistan’s leadership is highlighted as a key facilitator. The ceasefire, along with the related ten-point plan, is thus presented as a positive option, although it appears that Trump may not have been fully aware of its details at the moment of endorsement, describing it only as a workable framework for negotiations. On the ground, however, the process remains fragile and is expected by some analysts to face attempts at disruption by Israel.
Within this analytical framework, it is argued that a permanent agreement between the United States and Iran is precisely the scenario strongly opposed by Netanyahu, as it would undermine key strategic objectives associated with the “Greater Israel” vision. At the same time, the analysis suggests that alternative pathways toward peace in the Middle East exist, requiring direct U.S. engagement with regional realities. This is presented as a potential basis for a broader agreement between the United States and Iran in the coming days, which could play a decisive role in reducing regional tensions.
The article also refers to public opinion in the United States, citing 2025 Pew Research Center surveys indicating that a significant portion of the American public—including a majority of Jewish Americans—has low trust in Netanyahu and supports a two-state solution. It also claims that negative perceptions of Israel in U.S. public opinion are increasing to historically high levels, while sympathy for Israel has declined compared to previous decades.
Based on this, the article concludes that a gap has emerged between U.S. public opinion and the political establishment, which must align more closely with public sentiment. It argues that the opportunity for peace still exists but requires serious political investment from the United States. Iran’s proposal is presented as a meaningful initiative, and the current ceasefire is described as a fragile opportunity to move toward a broader settlement. The article ends with a central question: will the United States once again allow the peace process to be disrupted by Israeli policy, or will it act in line with its long-term interests and global stability to support a lasting peace in the region?
