Behind the Scenes "Forced Peace": Who Won in the Israel-Iran War? Clarifying Trump's Core Interests

Author:

Alexander Babitsky

08:00

In the Russian comment section, the term "theatrical agreement" has almost become the most popular word to describe when Trump announced the end of the "12-day war" between Iran and Israel. In fact, there are many questions about both the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran's retaliatory strikes against US military bases in the Middle East. On the surface, aircraft taking off, missiles being launched, and explosive scenes were quite "exciting," but in reality, there was no evidence of substantial damage. Most importantly, all parties were "satisfied."

At night on June 24, Donald Trump (as usual through social media) announced that both sides had "cooled down," ending the 12-day Iran-Israel war. Interestingly, this fragile peace almost broke the next morning - both sides again fired missiles at each other, but subsequent confirmation showed these attacks were "performative." The US president scolded both sides with profanity on camera, then flew to The Hague for a NATO summit - after all, "the show must go on."

"Theatrical Agreement" Exists - But Israel Was Excluded?

Experts in Russia generally believe that behind-the-scenes negotiations and backroom deals have always accompanied the Middle East conflict, but analysts differ on specific details.

Some experts firmly believe that everything was already settled before the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. Then Tehran's retaliation - of course "inevitable," even its announcement made the world clearly smell the scent of a third world war - but nothing happened.

Then Trump announced that Iran "had cooled down," and in the future, only peace would remain.

Trump used his usual method - informing the world through social media of his "peace achievements."

(The right image is a screenshot from the White House social media account, including automatic translation)

A more common view is that an agreement did exist behind the scenes, but the agreement did not cover the entire confrontation period, only involving an end plan for the active phase of the conflict that was acceptable to all parties, and it did not include Israel.

Political scientist Dmitry Yefstafyev depicted the most likely situation:

"We have not yet seen a comprehensive agreement; this is a process where all parties gradually demonstrate their strength to push political interaction. However, the goals of all parties remain unclear so far. However, one detail: I feel that this 'partial agreement' did not cover Israel."

Orientalist Dmitry Bricht also pointed out in a conversation with "Tsargrad" that the following scenario was most likely, and he found the idea that "all participants were assigned roles from the beginning" unconvincing:

"This was a carefully planned, logically clear media spectacle by the US election machine. Washington wrote the script, and other parties performed it, trying not to cross the line. The version that 'everything was already planned' is too conspiratorial. More likely, the conflict was moved into a 'controlled phase' at some point by the US and part of the Iranian ruling faction. Israel has always been maneuvering between showing strength and restraint. This is less of an 'agreement' and more of a strategic maneuver to save face for all parties."

If it comes to 'at least preserving some dignity,' Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu obviously is not in this category...

Political scientist Stanislav Tkachenko confirmed in an exclusive commentary for "First Russia" that there indeed exists a "nominally mutual strike agreement" between the US and Iran, while Israel's interests were hardly considered:

"The 'theatrical agreement' only applies to US-Iran relations. Washington needs to actually demonstrate its willingness to protect Israeli interests, while Iran wants to prevent the US from actively intervening in regional affairs, so it took a 'symbolic proportional retaliation' against US bombings. As for the Iran-Israel conflict, there is no 'agreement' at all. Israel is now realizing the serious consequences of its risky decision to attack Iran."

Russia's role should not be underestimated

Doctor of Political Science Andrei Pynchuk pointed out that the Middle East situation is developing according to the most logical script, and a gradual ceasefire followed by a longer-term negotiation was a more likely path, but the 'Trump factor' changed everything:

"The process was hit with an 'accelerator' - Trump is essentially a sprinter rather than a marathon runner, he is not good at long-term operations, and he feels uncomfortable with complex scripts, so he chose the simplest and most effective way. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran's 'virtual retaliation' were both aimed at forcing Israel to accept a ceasefire."

Pynchuk emphasized that Iran preserved domestic political stability - continuous fighting would only increase internal unrest, while for the Israeli leadership, the current 'game' is very unfavorable: in 2026, Israel will hold elections, and for Netanyahu, peace is a 'bad script,' because during peacetime people will start to tally up all his actions.

Trump flew to Europe to attend the NATO summit under the光环 of "Peace Maker" and "Victor."

Doctor of Political Science, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Journalism Theory and History, Russian People's Friendship University, and expert at the Russian Strategic Research Center Kamran Gasanov holds a similar view, believing that what we see is less of an "agreement" and more of a "logically development when it was not possible to completely destroy Iran":

"First, the US realized the risk of escalation was too high; second, Iran resisted, and the regime did not collapse, and the nuclear program was not destroyed; third, Russia's role should not be underestimated - Putin, Trump, and other relevant parties held phone talks, and Putin officially expressed support for the Iranian people."

Trump "unilaterally decided," and his government was unaware!

But perhaps, Russian experts are mistaking their wishes for reality, treating conspiracy theories as truth? Actually, in the latest round of Middle East conflict escalation, was there really a "theatrical agreement"?

Let's see how the world views Trump's "peace victory declaration" - American media unanimously admit that "an agreement exists," but then they diverge, with various versions emerging...

For example, The New York Times cited sources stating that Trump publicly announcing a ceasefire agreement with Iran and Israel surprised certain senior officials in his government.

Headline: "Trump Announces Ceasefire, Surprising His Government Leaders"

(Screenshot from The New York Times website)

Axios confirmed: To quickly build a diplomatic bridge and reach an agreement, Trump's inner circle - Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, and Middle East envoy Whitcomb - handled all the work. According to journalists, they negotiated with Iran through the Qatari government, while Trump himself directly communicated with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Even liberal American media, which opposes Trump, admitted that the "theatrical agreement" was an "acceptable solution" for all parties to escape the deadlock of the conflict - Washington played the role of a peace broker and claimed to "destroy Iran's nuclear program," Tehran had reasons to "propagate" its resilience in the confrontation with the West, and Israel could claim to have launched a devastating strike against its main opponent and significantly weakened its strength.

The facts also proved this: Iran's official media announced celebrations, as did Israel.

The "Political and Financial Benefits" Script

The mainstream narrative of American media believes that the "performance nature" of the conflict originated from Iran's active design. The Wall Street Journal even called Tehran's retaliation against US military bases in the region a "Persian Kabuki theater." Bloomberg also expressed a similar view: a desperate Iran was forced to agree to a "scripted retaliation."

Headline: "Satellite Images Show: US Attacks Avoided Iranian Nuclear Reactors"

(Screenshot from Bloomberg website)

However, American liberal media never misses an opportunity to criticize Trump. CNN believes that the White House owner initially escalated the Middle East situation to solve his own political problems, the primary goal being to improve his image among conservative publics who were beginning to lose trust. Now, Trump seems to have "successfully" avoided the risk of getting involved in the Middle East conflict (supporting Israel without directly engaging like Biden in Ukraine), and his voters are sure to once again regard him as a "real leader who fulfills his campaign promises."

Other media added fuel to this theory: According to newly released satellite images, the targets attacked in Iran showed that US aircraft deliberately avoided bombing nuclear reactors. This makes one wonder if the Trump administration tried to make the bombing as "mild" as possible - to avoid setting an insurmountable obstacle for the Iranian leadership to participate in negotiations.

"Stocks Up, Oil Down" - All Because of Israel, Iran, and Trump.

(Screenshot from Reuters website)

There was even a version that Trump and his team "muddied the waters in the Middle East" first for interest considerations, including personal interests - because the sudden escalation of the Iranian situation (and thus affecting the supply of oil in the Persian Gulf) caused global stock markets to fall and energy prices to rise, and after Trump's statement, the related data "immediately rebounded," which was too suspicious a coincidence...

No "Agreement" - India Sees Through It Better

Since both Russia and the US do not believe that the Iran-Israel confrontation in June 2025 was accidental and spontaneous, what do other countries think?

Some countries do not see any "backroom deals" in this "mediation" - Indian media even did not mention the "theatrical agreement." The Indian Express discussed various issues such as the conflict and the regional prospects after the ceasefire, but did not talk about any默契 transactions behind the current event.

The Hindustan Times focused on the negotiation efforts of the Trump administration, while other media such as The Hindu emphasized Iran's disadvantageous position and its forced agreement to a ceasefire.

For Trump, the top priority is "Trump," and American interests come fourth?

South African media adopted a similar strategy in reporting this incident - as a nominal ally of Iran within the BRICS group, local media focused on dynamics around Iran and Israel, without touching on potential secret diplomatic dealings between the "Tehran-Tel Aviv-Washington" triangle.

The term "12-Day War" by Trump has spread in newspapers in South Africa and other countries.

More South African public concerns are about the impact of the Middle East events on their country, for example, how South Africa's policy should be formulated regarding the conflict and US involvement: on one hand, South Africa has close relations with Iran and openly condemned Israel; on the other hand, it does not want to damage its relationship with the United States...

As a world power, it has the capital to make bolder and more candid assessments - but has not rushed to fully exercise this right. The mainstream tone of the media is: restraint, objective information transmission, interspersed with condemnation of US intervention and hope for a quick peaceful resolution of the conflict. From official media to the English-language Daily, almost all reports follow this principle.

Headline: "Trump Announces Ceasefire, Warns Israel and Iran Not to Violate the Agreement"

(Screenshot from Guancha.cn website)

However, some media still explored the topic of the "theatrical agreement." A deep article published by Guancha.cn not only believed that a backstage agreement was most likely to exist, but also proposed new arguments criticizing American foreign policy:

"Trump's primary concern is himself, followed by the 'Make America Great Again' movement, then Israeli interests, and finally American national interests. For the sake of satisfying these parties' interests, this 'big play' was staged... This proves that the US and the entire Western collective have lost strategic planning capabilities, remaining only with short-sighted tactical thinking."

It is worth noting that other countries' media also did not exceed the framework of "an agreement exists - but only in the final stage of the conflict and related to Iran's weak position." Japanese mainstream media (Huffington Post, Nikkei, Asahi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun, etc.) and Brazilian media (Folha de S.Paulo, R7, Brazil Post, etc.) mostly held this view.

Even the Japanese noticed something was wrong... Headline: "Iran's Response to the US: No Escalation, No Casualties"

(Screenshot from Asahi Shimbun website)

What Is the Conclusion?

Evidently, the most likely trajectory of the current Middle East conflict is that it began to follow some script after all parties clearly realized they could not win quickly. After all, it is hard to imagine that the confrontation started as a "theatrical agreement" and Iran voluntarily agreed to destroy its majority of scientific and military elite in advance.

But regardless of when this Middle East war began and to what extent it became a "theatrical agreement" and a media performance for both internal and external audiences, this situation should serve as a lesson. Countries in the "non-Western collective" should not only recognize again that "the US and its allies are untrustworthy," but should also begin practical preparations to deal with the next "non-partner" attack -

First, transforming many forms of cooperation into real (primarily military) collaboration, no longer fearing Western sanctions, and not worrying about negative reports from global liberal media.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7519793577086599719/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [top/down] buttons below.