The National Interest - Trump’s Ceasefire: Strategic Vision or Calculated Illusion? June 24, 2025 By: Ahmed Charai

 The National  Interest 

Trump’s Ceasefire: Strategic Vision or Calculated Illusion?

June 24, 2025

By: Ahmed Charai

Trump’s Iran policy is not regime change by force—it is strategic disengagement from the regime and re-engagement with the people.

In an age when hesitation masquerades as strategy, President Donald J. Trump stood alone in confronting the gravest geopolitical test of our era—and he did so with clarity of purpose, strategic focus, and tangible results.

Without deploying a single American ground unit, and without the encumbrance of bureaucratic diplomacy, Trump achieved what few believed possible: the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the imposition of a ceasefire between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This was not the product of multilateral consensus. It was imposed—decisively and on Trump’s terms.

What makes this moment all the more remarkable is the range of actors who aligned under pressure. The Pentagon and State Department, typically cautious and deliberative, found themselves reacting to a pace they did not set. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—no stranger to American politics—recognized that the path forward had already been drawn. Israel accepted the ceasefire not because it was convenient, but because escalation risked spiraling beyond control.

There was, once again, a pilot in the cockpit.

But the endurance of any foreign policy breakthrough depends not on how it begins, but on how it holds. Trump’s move may prove brilliant, or simply momentary. The central question is whether this ceasefire signals a regional rebalancing—or merely delays the next confrontation.

In Israel, the outcome was welcomed, but not mistaken for resolution. The war has reaffirmed the need to protect the independence of Israel’s national security institutions—especially the Mossad—from the corrosive effects of domestic political polarization. The agency’s quiet penetration of Iranian military infrastructure played a decisive role. Under the leadership of David Barnea—whose mastery of Iran’s nuclear and regional architecture is unparalleled—the Mossad shaped the strategic tempo that not only made the ceasefire possible, but decisively disrupted Tehran’s proxy ecosystem and altered the balance of power across the Middle East.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was not destroyed, but it was dealt a clear setback. Key facilities were neutralized, networks compromised, and personnel lost. To rebuild, Tehran will turn east—to Moscow and Beijing. But neither offers unconditional aid. Russia will demand basing rights and deeper access to Iranian infrastructure. China will seek preferential terms in energy markets and transit corridors. The IRGC’s survival as a regional power will now depend on concessions to foreign patrons—a reality that weakens its autonomy and strategic posture.

This is a narrow window for American strategy. If Washington does not act, Russian influence in Iran and the Caucasus will grow unchecked, and China’s reach into Iranian ports and pipelines will become entrenched. But with smart diplomacy and regional coordination—from the Gulf to Central Asia—U.S. leadership can blunt the impact of that realignment before it hardens.

Yet Iran’s asymmetric warfare doctrine remains intact. Its proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq—have not disarmed. These actors, untouched by ceasefire, continue to serve as Tehran’s forward arm. They offer deniability, flexibility, and persistent threat. The ceasefire has changed little in this regard; the next flare-up may well begin with them.

And this moment also raises a question that many in Washington avoid: is regime change in Iran possible, and if so, on what terms? The Islamic Republic is more brittle than ever—economically battered, politically fractured, and aging into irrelevance in the eyes of its own youth. But change will not come from foreign airstrikes or slogans. It must come from within. That means supporting independent media, circumventing regime control of communication, and building long-term economic mechanisms that empower civil society. This is not regime change by force—it is strategic disengagement from the regime and re-engagement with the people. The risks are real, but the alternative is permanent volatility.

What President Trump achieved is strategically undeniable. He halted a conflict before it spread, before outside powers were drawn in, and before regional escalation became inevitable. He did so without occupation, without capitulation, and without dragging America into another war in the Middle East.

Yet peace is never declared—it is constructed, patiently and deliberately. Whether this ceasefire represents a new regional balance or a brief pause in an ongoing storm will depend not only on Iran or Israel—but on whether the United States and its allies are ready to lead with vision, discipline, and the willingness to seize the opportunity that this moment presents.

Trump has opened the door. Others must now walk through it.

About the Author: Ahmed Charai

Ahmed Charai is the Chairman and CEO of World Herald Tribune, Inc., and the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, TV Abraham, and Radio Abraham. He serves on the boards of several prominent institutions, including the Atlantic Council, the Center for the National Interest, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the International Crisis Group. He is also an International Councilor and a member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.