The current pause in the Iran-US confrontation should not be mistaken for a pathway to a comprehensive peace agreement. The idea that the two sides can negotiate a far-reaching settlement within six weeks is simply unrealistic. The underlying disputes, from Iran's nuclear program to its regional role, are too deep and politically complex to resolve on such a compressed timetable. What is far more likely is an extended period of uneasy stability driven by necessity rather than trust. Washington's priority is keeping the Strait of Hormuz reliably open while avoiding another costly military conflict.
Iran, meanwhile, urgently needs oil revenues, access to frozen assets and a path towards economic recovery. Those immediate interests create strong incentives for both sides to preserve the current ceasefire, even if sporadic clashes or temporary disruptions continue. The greatest uncertainty remains Israel, whose strategic objectives differ significantly from those of the United States. However, President Trump has already demonstrated that he is prepared to prioritize American interests over Israeli preferences.
Europe: Stability Through Persistence
Europe is likely to maintain its support for Ukraine because there is no credible alternative that delivers a durable peace. While a negotiated territorial compromise may eventually emerge, there is little evidence that Russia is prepared to offer one. As a result, the conflict is more likely to continue through gradual attrition. Europe's commitment, therefore, is unlikely to weaken; if anything, it is becoming more entrenched as policymakers conclude that sustaining Ukraine remains the least risky strategic option.