With Israel pressing ahead despite Trump’s ceasefire appeal, the spotlight now shifts to Russia and China, whose growing influence may prove decisive in easing tensions—and containing escalation. A report by Gopal Misra
In spite of US President Donald Trump’s openly expressed anguish, it appears that the other two major world powers, Russia and China, may succeed in bringing a pause, at least for now, to the ongoing breathtaking confrontation between Israel and Iran that threatens to engulf the entire region. A key role in ensuring peace for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping has suddenly become imperative, following Israel’s decision to ignore Trump’s advice to adhere to the ceasefire.
Earlier, both Russia and China had taken the initiative at the Security Council meeting held in New York, calling for an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, reports published in the American media, quoting a preliminary classified U.S. assessment, suggest that American airstrikes had not fully destroyed Iranian nuclear sites, as President Trump has claimed. In other words, despite the olive branch from the White House, Trump’s ambition for a Nobel Peace Prize—recently championed by his close aides—might remain elusive. Meanwhile, Iran has signalled that the country would be open to talks about its nuclear ambitions.
Indeed, the violation of the ceasefire has created a piquant situation for Trump, who was on his way to The Hague on June 24 to attend the NATO meeting. Earlier, the UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting held in New York was aimed at discussing U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, but American support for an immediate ceasefire has since altered the situation. At the UNSC, Russia and China had proposed a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in West Asia. With U.S. backing for ending the conflict without delay, a greater role has now emerged for China and Russia in bringing about peace in the region.
Also at the UNSC, UN Secretary-General António Guterres cautioned the world body: “We must act immediately and decisively to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn.”
Meanwhile, within hours of Trump expressing displeasure and scolding both Iran and Israel for early violations of the truce he had announced, Israel bombed a target near Tehran on June 24. It appeared that despite a furious rebuke from Trump, who was on his way to a NATO summit in The Hague, Israel had launched airstrikes just hours after agreeing to a ceasefire deal with Iran. Israel has accused Iran of violating the ceasefire, prompting the retaliation. On the other hand, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has assured that his country would not violate the ceasefire unless Israel does so, and that Iran is prepared to return to negotiations.
Russia and China’s role crucial
In fact, the role of Russia and China has become more pronounced after Israel’s bombing of Iran. This took place despite Trump’s stinging criticism of Israel, Washington’s close ally in the region, over the scale of its strikes. He also advised Israel to “calm down now”, but Tel Aviv appears to be ignoring even his ardent supporters in America. Also, China is perhaps a bigger buyer of Iranian oil. Reports suggest that the threat to global trade and supply lines has grown following the intense bombing of Iran by the US and Israel.
The situation appears to be worsening with each passing day, as the world’s 20 per cent energy supply route faces disruption if Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz. Following the airstrikes, several top Iranian officials threatened retaliation. Iran launched barrages of missiles at U.S. bases in the Middle East, while state media reported that Iran’s Parliament had voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key global shipping chokepoint. Trump’s anguish was evident when he stated, “I didn’t like plenty of things I saw yesterday. I didn’t like the fact that Israel unloaded right after we made the deal. They didn’t have to unload, and I didn’t like the fact that the retaliation was very strong.”
With the support of China and Russia, the ceasefire announced by Trump cannot be ignored by Israel and Iran. Thus, with backing from the two global powers, Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel has officially come into effect and cannot be easily violated. It is hoped that the UNSC will soon endorse it, urging both parties to uphold the truce. There is worldwide appreciation for Trump’s statement: “The ceasefire is now in effect. Please do not violate it!”—a message he posted on Truth Social that cannot be taken lightly. Earlier, both sides had exchanged heavy fire overnight.
It remains to be seen whether the fragile ceasefire can be supervised by the UN, especially in light of Israel accusing Iran of violating the agreement just hours after it was reached. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz claimed on June 24 that Iran had “completely violated” the ceasefire and vowed retaliation. However, Iran has denied any such violation. The state-run Tasnim News Agency has reported that the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces has refuted Israeli media claims that Iran had fired missiles at Israel.
Bottom of Form
Trump’s reaction to the violation of the ceasefire appeared to be quite judicious. While acknowledging Iran’s violation of the truce, he expressed frustration with the scale of Israel’s response, observing: “In all fairness, Israel unloaded a lot. And now I hear Israel just went out because they felt it was violated by one rocket that didn’t land anywhere. That’s not what we want.”
Trump told media persons, “They (Israel) came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before—the biggest load that we’ve seen. I’m not happy with Israel.”
Later, Trump voiced his frustration on Truth Social, warning Tel Aviv not to bomb Iran: “Do not drop those bombs. If you do it is a major violation. Bring your pilots home, now!” Trump wrote in all caps.
US climb down on regime change
Meanwhile, it appears that Trump, who wrote on Truth Social, has climbed down from his earlier statement that Iranian government—which has ruled the country as an Islamic theocratic autocracy since 1979—could be toppled amid more than a week of airstrikes between Iran and Israel. The Tehran regime has survived the US bombing of multiple nuclear sites in an attempt to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.
Earlier, Trump and a few White House officials had indicated that the administration was open to regime change after the United States bombed the country’s nuclear facilities. It was stated that, “It’s not politically correct to use the term ‘regime change,’ but if the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a regime change?”
However, US Vice-President JD Vance did not endorse this view. He stated, “We don’t want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program—that’s what the president set us out to do.”
Further, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a news channel that the airstrikes were not “an attack on Iran” and “not an attack on the Iranian people,” adding, “this wasn’t a regime change move.”
Trump’s suggestion for regime change was not appreciated by many lawmakers. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of the Republican Party said that the United States should not get involved in the Israel–Iran conflict. According to her, she doesn’t want any further American participation in foreign conflicts. She observed that “Americans now fear Iranian terrorist attacks on our own soil and that our country might be dragged into another war.” She recalled that “American troops have been killed and forever torn apart—physically and mentally—for regime change, foreign wars, and for military-industrial base profits.”
Vance has also clarified that there will be “no boots on the ground” in Iran, meaning no U.S. troops will be deployed. He further said that Trump has been clear that the United States does not want a lengthy conflict with Iran. “I think that we have really pushed their (nuclear) program back by a very long time,” he said. “I think that it’s going to be many, many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Meanwhile, in spite of Iran’s barrages of missiles at U.S. bases in the Middle East, the US appears to be in no mood to retaliate. Earlier, Iranian Army Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami stated, through state-run Iranian media, that the United States would face Iranian repercussions, while Iran’s foreign minister asserted that “all options” are on the table.
It cannot be denied that India and China will be directly and adversely affected if the conflict continues. Questions are also being raised about whether the region is heading towards a repeat of the Gulf Wars, which consisted of two phases: Operation Desert Shield (August 2, 1990 to January 17, 1991), and the second phase, codenamed Desert Storm (January 17, 1991 to February 28, 1991).
The estimated cost of these wars was USD 120 billion, largely borne by the Gulf countries, which had to part with revenues earned from petroleum exports. US taxpayers, too, contributed to these conflicts.
Another dimension of these wars was the massive oil spill, which severely impacted 700 kilometres of marine life along the Saudi Arabian coastline. The cleanup operation is expected to continue until 2031.
Hamas attack a flashpoint
The Hamas-led attack on innocent Israeli civilians on the morning of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli retaliation—now known as the ongoing Gaza War—form the root of the present conflict in West Asia. The US supported Israel with the latest weapons and financial assistance. The US Congress extended financial support to the Israeli forces by approving funds, which included USD 19.3 billion, with USD 14 billion allocated for military operations (USD 4 billion for air defence and USD 1.2 billion for the Iron Beam defence system). The legislation also included USD 9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as for those caught in war zones across the globe.
It may be mentioned that for the US-led West, there was little hesitation in selling weapons to Iran. It is said that the State Department changed its policy towards Iran following the siege of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. In 1980, it allowed Israel to sell American armaments to Iran during the Gulf War.
This support to Iran was initially explained as a strategy to secure the release of American hostages. Yet, the hostages were freed before the US began supplying weapons to Iran. American hypocrisy was later exposed, as it became clear that the US had supplied weapons to Iran through Israel to secure financial gains for its military-industrial complex.
In recent months, the US-Saudi Arabia defence ties have further expanded.In 2017, Saudi Arabia had purchased defence equipment worth 115 billion USD including tanks, combat ships and missile defence systems. It is stated that the Saudi-led coalition fighting terrorism in Yemen had attacked a school bus killing 40 children, with a bomb provided by the US in 2018. It is estimated that the American weapons enabled Saudi Arabia to attack the civilian population killing 10,000 children.
In an effort to eradicate Russian influence in Syria, US involvement can be traced back to the Obama administration in 2015. It continued under the Trump presidency, during which the Syrian government under a controversial figure, Ahmad al-Sharaa, was eventually recognised.
The situation became more complicated in 2019, when Turkey struck an agreement with Russia—posing a challenge to the White House, as the US and its Western allies were supporting the Kurdish liberation forces. Trump addressed the issue by recognising the Ahmad al-Sharaa regime.
Despite this turnabout, it remains doubtful whether US companies will be able to gain control of the oilfields located in Syria’s north-eastern province.
US interests shape its Mideast role
The United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East has its roots in the early 19th-century Tripolitan War. This occurred shortly after 1776, when the US emerged as a sovereign state. During the post–World War II decades, its purpose was to retain control over the oil fields under the pretext of an anti-Communist movement. As a successor to the British Empire, it became the main security patron of both Saudi Arabia and Israel. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, its ties with Iran were disrupted. It may be noted that the US and Persia (Iran) had established commercial relations as early as 1857.
During the 1950s, in response to the power vacuum in the Middle East following the Suez Crisis, the Eisenhower administration developed a new policy aimed at stabilising the region against Soviet threats or internal turmoil. Given the collapse of British prestige and the rise of Soviet interest in the region, the President informed Congress on January 5, 1957, that it was essential for the US to assume new responsibilities for the security of West Asia. Under the policy, known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, any Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or military aid if it was being threatened by armed aggression.
Owing to their monopolistic mindset, American oil companies such as Standard Oil of New Jersey and Socony-Vacuum were opposed to the Red Line Agreement signed in 1928. The US companies argued that, after World War II, they were no longer bound by the agreement. After a prolonged legal battle and negotiations, Saudi Arabia finally signed an accord with ARAMCO to develop its oil resources.
For the past eight decades or so, American troops have been deployed in the region to protect US strategic and economic interests. It is estimated that the US currently has approximately 45,000 troops in the region, including around 2,500 stationed in Iraq, 900 in Syria, and others in Bahrain, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. In 2010, the US had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq, about 70,000 in Afghanistan, and many more in neighbouring countries.
Hammer or Hype?
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed during a Pentagon news briefing that the U.S. strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities overnight on June 21–22 followed a highly intricate plan involving more than 125 U.S. aircraft and warships, along with multiple layers of deception. The mission—dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer—was developed over weeks and months, “so that we could be ready when the President of the United States called.”
Meanwhile, some reports suggest that American airstrikes had not fully destroyed Iranian nuclear sites, as President Trump has claimed.
The U.S. strikes, launched a week after Israel carried out a series of surprise airstrikes across Iran, were aimed primarily at Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility. Since Israel lacked the capacity to penetrate the site—located hundreds of feet underground in a mountainous region of Iran—the U.S. Air Force deployed B-2 Spirit stealth bombers equipped with 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, known as GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators.
