Possible Impacts of the US-Brokered Iran-Israel Ceasefire

Sam Habib & Lilya Yatim

The recent escalation in regional tensions incited by Israel’s attack on Iran, specifically targeting the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and military sites, has spurred a new crisis in the Middle East.
​
Although the Trump administration alleged that Israel acted unilaterally against Iran, the ongoing strikes align with Washington’s objective of defanging Iran through dismantling its network of paramilitary allies, often called the “Axis of Resistance.” Further, Israel’s attack emerged amid the United States’ failure to achieve an Iranian nuclear deal. Thus, it may signal Trump’s willingness to use his Israeli allies as leverage to reinforce US power in the region, while simultaneously limiting Iran’s regional influence and military capabilities.

On Friday, June 13, Israel launched a “pre-emptive strike,” hitting 100 targets across six cities, including Tehran. Most of the strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, killing at least six nuclear experts and Iran’s military Chief of Staff, while some hit civilian residential buildings, killing and wounding approximately forty Iranian civilians. Iran promptly retaliated with drone strikes on Israel, leading to alternating air strikes between the two states. Since the initial attack, both countries have exchanged missiles, with 224 Iranians killed and 14 Israelis dead. The Israeli attack on Iran marks a turning point from previous attacks on Iran’s so-called proxy militias: Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Although Israel’s attack occurred after Trump was unable to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration initially claimed that Israel acted “unilaterally” against Iran. Yet, in the days that followed the June 13 attack, it has become increasingly evident that the US and Western nations supported Israel before the attack.

On June 21, the US formally entered the conflict through an operation targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities, allegedly aimed at crippling Iranian offensive nuclear capabilities. The US attack used fourteen “bunker buster bombs,” a highly destructive form of munitions that can penetrate deep underground. On June 23, Iran responded through a symbolic targeting of US military bases in Iraq and Qatar, including the largest US military base in the region, Al Udeid. The attack was largely symbolic, with Iran warning the US of the incoming strikes to prevent casualties. Soon after Iran’s response, President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total ceasefire.” It is unclear whether Iran agreed to the ceasefire at the time of the announcement, leaving the viability of this ceasefire open to debate.

Expansion of Targets

In the event that the ceasefire doesn’t hold up, an escalation of hostilities is likely. One significant development that could occur is the adoption of new targets by Israel and Iran. In Israel’s case, this could include targeting key government officials, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, with Washington’s support. In Iran’s case, attacks could continue on American or even British military bases in the Middle East. However, Iran is likely to maintain symbolic attacks on such bases to avoid a greater provocation with the US and NATO.
Before the ceasefire, Israel had targeted several high-ranking Iranian officials and nuclear scientists. The possibility of Israel targeting the Ayatollah is not unlikely. Still, it would be impossible for such a strike to occur without US backing, which may arise should the ceasefire fall through. It is also essential to consider whether the US would participate in a strike to invoke a complete regime change in Iran. This would likely occur covertly, with US military intelligence supporting its Israeli allies. On the other hand, if Iran were to escalate by continuing to target US military bases in the region and were to escalate to target American personnel, Washington would certainly respond to these attacks with a declaration of war, particularly given President Trump's proclivity to defend American troops.
 
US-Iran Nuclear Treaty

If the ceasefire were to hold, however, further diplomatic engagement between Iran and the US would follow in the form of a possible US-Iran nuclear deal. It is worth noting that Trump was previously negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, and it was in the context of the deal’s stagnation that Israel struck on June 13.

Iran’s foreign ministry had previously expressed a willingness to negotiate with the US regarding a ceasefire, indicating a desire to establish a robust treaty with the US. Washington has made it clear, however, that for a nuclear deal to occur, it must include a concession for Iran to halt any nuclear armament production. It is possible Iran would agree to this to prevent an American invasion and consequent regime change. In this possible nuclear deal, Iran would have to make significant concessions for the Islamic Regime to maintain its power.

These concessions could mirror the 2003 Grand Bargain Proposal, which Iran made fearing the US would invade it following its invasion of Iraq that year. The Grand Bargain, though an unofficial offer, promised that Iran would completely alter its foreign policy by ending funding of Palestinian militias, ending its nuclear program, and even beginning domestic liberalisation. In a deal with Trump, these concessions could change to end all funding to Iran’s proxies, namely Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and end Iran’s offensive nuclear program. By offering greater concessions to end paramilitary funding, Iran could preserve its nuclear power development, maintain its existing domestic policies and preserve the regime.
           
Conclusion
​
Although these scenarios portray some of the possibilities for the future of this conflict, the situation is constantly evolving and remains very fluid. However, these remain some of the most probable next steps, with US and Western military encroachment into the Middle East a possibility. This is particularly worrying given the existing instability in the region and the increased risk of escalation between two unpredictable actors.

About the Authors
Sam Habib and Lilya Yatim are interns in IFI's Regional & International Affairs Cluster.