Le Monde: Iran War: The Current Ceasefire Is Essentially a Strategic Defeat for the United States

Le Monde published an article on Thursday analyzing the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, stating that the current truce effectively represents a strategic defeat for the U.S.

The article notes that although Trump loudly proclaimed victory, the reality is closer to the United States accepting a unilateral ceasefire under pressure, with the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz still unachieved. The U.S. government attempts to shape a narrative of victory by emphasizing the military impact on Iran, but the term "victory" has never been so hollowly used as it is today.

On Wednesday, April 8—the day after the Trump administration announced a 15-day ceasefire—it worked hard to convince the American public that Operation "Epic Fury" was a massive success.

Defense Secretary Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Caine claimed it was a "military victory with a capital V." They listed the damage inflicted on Iran’s military forces: "approximately 80% of air defense systems," "over 450 ballistic missile storage facilities," "more than 2,000 command and control centers," "over 90% of the navy," "over 95% of mines," and "over 80% of missile installations"—all destroyed.

However, Le Monde points out that in this seemingly triumphant picture, the United States fails to mention how much military strength the Iranian regime still retains—how many missiles, how many drones remain? Nor does the U.S. predict how quickly Iran might rearm in the future.

"Tactical Strength, Strategic Weakness"

A military expert told Le Monde that a war should be judged based on whether political objectives are achieved. So far, this conflict once again reflects America’s long-standing pattern of "tactical strength, strategic weakness": excelling in tactics and operations, winning battles, yet failing strategically.

In fact, the U.S. accepted a unilateral ceasefire, while Iran continues to control the Strait of Hormuz—a move seen as a major concession by the U.S., weakening its international influence and deterrent power.

Moreover, U.S. actions in the Middle East reveal a lack of clear strategic goals and highly ad hoc decision-making.

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. President announced that countries supplying military equipment to Iran would face an additional 50% tariff. However, this threat received little media coverage, and its deterrent effect appears limited. Russia has already seen partial lifting of sanctions on its oil exports.

Nuclear Issue: Shifting U.S. Position

Le Monde also highlights that nuclear negotiations will be key in the next phase, but the U.S. position remains inconsistent: insisting Iran must not develop nuclear weapons while not fully denying its right to civilian uranium enrichment.

The U.S. President reiterated that the U.S. stance is that Iran must "not engage in uranium enrichment." He even stated that the U.S. would "work with Iran to dig up and remove" high-enriched uranium stockpiles buried beneath ruins since the bombing in June 2025.

Yet Vice President Vance, speaking at Budapest Airport, said, "We do not want Iran capable of building nuclear weapons. The President also said we do not want Iran enriching uranium for nuclear weapons purposes and hope it gives up nuclear fuel." Therefore, Vance did not formally deny Iran's right to low-level uranium enrichment (up to 3.67%) for civilian use.

Regarding upcoming talks in Islamabad, Le Monde notes that mutual trust between both sides is severely lacking, and the U.S.'s negotiating capacity is being questioned, casting significant uncertainty over the prospects. Overall, this ceasefire appears more like a stopgap measure following a strategic setback rather than a genuine victory.

Source: rfi

Original: toutiao.com/article/1862057212754956/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author