Former U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire, halting a devastating two-week-long conflict that has claimed hundreds of lives and raised fears of a broader regional war.
The announcement came via a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform at around 5 a.m. GMT on Tuesday, where he declared that a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE” was now in effect.
Trump extended congratulations to both nations and urged them to abide by the truce.
Despite the optimistic tone of the announcement, the ceasefire’s timing and implementation remained murky. Iranian missiles were still being launched at Israeli targets early Tuesday morning, before the supposed ceasefire deadline, with one deadly strike hitting a residential building in Beersheba, resulting in four deaths and at least 22 injuries, according to emergency services.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had earlier stated that Iran would cease its attacks if Israel halted its airstrikes, suggesting the missile barrage may have occurred before this condition was met.
Israeli air raids on Tehran overnight were reported to be among the most intense to date, causing widespread fear among residents.
A Tehran-based social media user described the bombardment as relentless, with explosions continuing for over an hour. The timing of these mutual attacks has fueled uncertainty over the true start of the ceasefire.
Trump dubbed the conflict the “12-Day War” and expressed hope that the ceasefire would lead to a broader de-escalation and, eventually, peace.
While Iranian state television confirmed that a ceasefire was being imposed, it framed the development as a forced outcome, emphasizing Iran’s position of strength.
Meanwhile, there was no immediate confirmation from Israeli officials, although several media reports indicated that Israeli leadership was looking to wind down its campaign.
According to Reuters, three senior Israeli officials hinted that Israel’s military objectives were close to completion and that messages to this effect had been conveyed to Washington.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a statement on Sunday, remarked that Israel was “very, very close” to achieving its strategic goals.
The U.S. played a significant role in the lead-up to the ceasefire. On Sunday, American forces joined the Israeli campaign by striking Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, triggering a carefully orchestrated Iranian counterstrike on a U.S. airbase in Qatar.
Trump downplayed Iran’s response, calling it a “very weak” retaliation, and thanked Iran for providing advance notice. He emphasized that no American personnel had been harmed, suggesting the Iranian action was more symbolic than escalatory.
Trump’s advisers indicated that the restrained Iranian response was seen as a signal that Tehran was open to diplomatic engagement.
They believed that Iran had struck a balance between retaliating for U.S. involvement and avoiding further provocation that might invite a broader military campaign.
The ceasefire also provided an opportunity for the Trump administration to reposition the U.S. strikes as a strategic success. While questions linger about the extent of the damage to Iran’s deeply buried Fordow nuclear site, Trump insisted that Iranian facilities had been “destroyed.”
However, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said no independent assessment had yet been made regarding the extent of damage at Fordow.
Despite this, U.S. officials have portrayed the mission as a victory. Vice-President JD Vance stated that the Iranian regime was now “incapable of building a nuclear weapon with the equipment they have because we destroyed it.”
Trump advisers claimed that even if Fordow wasn’t completely neutralized, the operation had successfully compelled Iran to negotiate, marking a significant shift in regional dynamics.
As talks are anticipated to begin soon, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to lead U.S. diplomatic efforts with Iran. These negotiations will likely focus on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and future safeguards against further enrichment.
Meanwhile, the conflict has exposed the volatility of the situation on the ground. Over 11 days of conflict, Israel and Iran exchanged missile strikes with increasing ferocity.
One of the most controversial Israeli operations involved a strike on Iran’s notorious Evin Prison, home to many political prisoners, dual nationals, and foreign detainees often used as bargaining chips by Tehran.
Iranian authorities confirmed damage to the prison but claimed that the situation remained under control. The Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran raised concerns over the welfare of detainees and urged international organizations to ensure their safety.
As the ceasefire sets in, broader political narratives are emerging. Netanyahu’s cabinet has publicly expressed hopes for regime change in Tehran. Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamleil, a senior Likud member, stated on social media that Iran’s “Nazi ayatollah regime” must be overthrown and called for continued efforts to create conditions for revolution.
Her post ended with the provocative phrase: “Next year in Tehran.”
In contrast, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian took to X (formerly Twitter) during the missile strikes, stating: “We neither initiated the war nor were we seeking it. But we will not leave aggression against the great Iran without an answer.”
Interestingly, Iran’s missile barrage avoided direct hits on Qatar, which was described as a “friendly and brotherly nation” by the Iranian armed forces.
This distinction reinforced the notion that the retaliation was calculated and intended to minimize collateral damage while still signaling strength.
The international community responded cautiously to the developments. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed solidarity with Qatar but criticized the legality of the U.S. strikes on Iran, stating that any regime change should stem from the will of the Iranian people rather than foreign intervention.
Ultimately, the true test of the ceasefire’s endurance lies ahead. While hostilities may have paused, deep-rooted animosities, strategic ambitions, and unresolved nuclear concerns persist. The coming days and the nature of the planned negotiations will reveal whether this fragile peace holds or becomes merely another interlude in a region accustomed to cycles of violence and diplomacy.
(With inputs from Guardian and Reuters)
