SAEDNEWS: Opponents are drawn back toward conflict only when they assume the consequences will not be too severe and when they perceive doubt, vulnerability, or conciliatory signals during diplomatic exchanges or public remarks.
According to a note published by Kayhan titled “Will war break out again or not? Twelve points about a question,” the answer to this question depends on several other questions: Why did the war happen and why did Trump and Netanyahu launch an attack? Why was the war stopped—was it only due to shortages in forces and weapons, or were there deeper reasons? How does Trump’s decision-making system work? What options and constraints does he have? Has he learned any lessons from the war? Does he make independent decisions, or is he constrained by others?
The attack on Iran was based on calculations whose underlying assumptions have now collapsed. The planners believed that by assassinating leaders and commanders, along with destroying infrastructure, Iran would collapse and surrender.
The “Deymah unrest” contributed to this assessment. It occurred when some officials—knowingly or unknowingly—played a role aligned with the enemy’s plan, delaying negotiations and failing to address problems that required solutions outside of negotiation.
The enemy’s war estimate was a victory within three days, or at most four to six weeks. Trump, misled by Netanyahu (according to a recent Guardian report), thought he could “swallow Iran like Venezuela.” However, the reality turned out completely opposite. The “wise engineering” of Ayatollah Khamenei overcame the enemy’s plan. The Iranian nation became mobilized. An unprecedented unity was formed. Iran’s armed forces, according to the plan, only delivered a limited but impactful response against U.S. forces. Sixteen Pentagon bases came under heavy attack and were largely rendered ineffective. The prestige of the U.S. military was significantly damaged. Radars and defense systems were disabled. Advanced Pentagon aircraft were reportedly shot down. Trump suffered a major humiliation in southern Isfahan, damaging his reputation. Plans such as deploying troops deep inside Iran or seizing ports and islands did not proceed.
The enemy’s plan for a “short, high-impact shock operation” collapsed. The U.S. Joint Chiefs had warned Trump that if the war extended beyond a few weeks, costs and casualties would become unbearable. The reality matched that warning. Following this, some U.S. military officials were dismissed. Reports indicated equipment shortages after 40 days of war. Western newspapers such as The Telegraph and The Guardian reported disorganization in the Pentagon due to mismanagement.
In this difficult situation, Trump agreed to a ceasefire, combined with extreme threats such as “destroying Iran’s civilization and returning it to the Stone Age” to mask defeat. He later partially retreated from those threats under the pretext of negotiations. Throughout this period, he remained sensitive to financial markets and prices, which were pressuring him politically. It is also claimed that he and his circle profited financially from fluctuations during the crisis. However, this did not satisfy his political ambitions, especially after repeatedly mocking past U.S. presidents over Iran policy.
After 40 days of war, Trump accepted the ceasefire and has since acted under pressure, repeatedly considering renewed escalation but backing down after assessing Iran’s strength. He declared a maritime blockade but achieved no meaningful results. Iran not only resisted but increased pressure on U.S. calculations in the Strait of Hormuz, intensifying economic strain.
In the next phase, Trump promoted the so-called “Operation Freedom” to open the Strait of Hormuz, which lasted less than two days before being halted due to Iranian pressure on naval forces. Iran expanded restricted zones around the Strait and disrupted regional logistics.
Throughout this 34-day period of limited confrontation, Iran maintained a firm and calculated response: leadership remained stable and authoritative, public unity continued, and the military stayed fully prepared. Iran struck without revealing its full capabilities. Advanced technologies such as drones and unmanned systems were highlighted, while other naval capabilities reportedly remained unused. It is suggested that Iran could inflict decisive damage on U.S. naval forces if necessary.
Trump, though described as reckless or constrained, sees no effective path for a new military action. His advisors also recognize the risks. Even hawkish analysts have described the situation as a near strategic deadlock for the United States. At the same time, neither Trump nor his allies are willing to admit defeat, making the situation politically unstable.
The opposing side is repeatedly tempted toward another military or proxy confrontation, possibly using negotiations for intelligence gathering. However, what restrains them is the fear of repeating past failures and the risk of greater escalation. They recognize that further conflict could lead to severe regional consequences, including disruption of key global energy routes.
War also has economic and psychological dimensions. Pressure campaigns aim to weaken Iran internally through economic and media warfare. This front, the text argues, must be countered with equal strength by breaking blockades, restoring balance, and confronting hostile information networks.
The adversary will only avoid renewed war if it believes the costs are unbearable and if it consistently receives signals of Iranian resilience. Any perceived weakness or hesitation could encourage further escalation. According to this view, the struggle is not a short conflict but a long battle of wills and endurance. If resilience is clearly demonstrated, escalation will be deterred; if not, the risk of renewed conflict increases.
