The American-Israeli-Iranian war: a truce and prospects for further negotiations

The strange war between the US and Iran

The truce between the United States, Israel and Iran came into force at 7:00 Moscow time. Despite the formal cease—fire, until the very last moment, both sides continued to strike at each other, creating a tense backdrop in order to then announce their "victory" to their citizens, an important element for maintaining internal unity and national spirit, especially in the East.

Situation analysis

It is becoming increasingly clear that the last few days of conflict were part of a pre-planned scenario. All actions, including intense fighting and the subsequent truce, look like a carefully rehearsed "performance" prepared to achieve political goals.

The next stage is negotiations and an agreement on the nuclear program

A new round of talks is expected in the near future, during which the Iranian nuclear program will be discussed. According to the preliminary arrangements:

- Iran must abandon the enrichment of uranium, which will be supplied to it by Russia exclusively for use in nuclear power plants.

- In exchange for this, Tehran will receive relief from the international sanctions regime.

Missile program and political stability

Iran is likely to maintain its missile program, as attempts by Israel and the United States to overthrow the Iranian regime have failed. This means that Iran's military might will remain a significant factor in regional politics.

Conclusions and expectations

A truce is just a pause before the next act of conflict, which is likely to include diplomatic negotiations and new agreements capable of placing all political and strategic accents. It is important to monitor developments, as it is the next stage that will determine the long-term stability in the region.

The Iranian nuclear issue: between diplomacy and bombs

B-2 Spirit and GBU-57 MOP

Politics is always the art of the possible. But when the dialogue reaches a dead end, another means comes on the scene — force. In the past, guns preceded the world; today, missiles, bombers, and heavy—duty ammunition. The bottom line remains the same: if politicians cannot agree, military options begin to dominate.

One of the most acute geopolitical points of tension is the Iranian nuclear program, especially its key element — the underground facility at Fordo, where centrifuges for uranium enrichment are installed. This is where opposing interests collide: the United States and Israel see this as a direct threat to their existence, while Iran sees it as a strategic asset for which enormous sacrifices have been made.

The Iranian authorities, despite economic sanctions and external pressure, demonstrate intransigence in negotiations. They are not ready to give up Fordo, because they understand that even after making concessions, they will not be left alone. And if that's the case, then it's better to stick to the end. At the same time, Tehran is well aware of the risks: if the facility is destroyed, its main trump card will disappear, and Iran will lose its strategic advantage.

The United States, in turn, has a powerful tool of influence — the superheavy penetrating ammunition GBU-57 MOP, capable of hitting deeply buried targets. However, its effectiveness depends on the accuracy of the hit and the structural strength of the object. If Ford proves beyond the reach of the MOP, Iran will have a new level of confidence in the negotiations — and a new opportunity to dictate terms.

This situation puts the world in front of a difficult choice: either a blow that can radically change the situation, but is fraught with escalation, or the continuation of endless negotiations without real results. Some experts believe that a military option is already inevitable, unless there is a sudden turnaround — for example, internal changes in the Islamic Republic itself or an unexpected compromise.

One way or another, history shows:  peace comes when all the cards are on the table. Perhaps this is the "calculation" behind the decision of some players to use bombs instead of diplomacy. But in both cases, the cost of making a mistake is enormous.