It was the United States, in the 1950s, that provided Iran with 93% enriched uranium under the “Atoms for Peace” program.

The recent clash between Iran, Israel, and the United States, culminating in the ceasefire announced on June 23, 2025, appears more as a tactical pause imposed by unfolding events than the result of a genuine will for peace. On the surface, all the involved parties can claim their own “victory”: Tehran declares it has staunchly defended its sovereignty, while Washington and Tel Aviv celebrate what they label as “decisive” strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Yet beneath the veneer of official statements, none of the actors truly achieved their strategic objectives.

After all, such an outcome was inevitable: real and lasting goals—mutual security, stability, and peace—cannot be achieved through unilateral military operations, hybrid warfare, sanctions, or diplomatic sleight of hand. The Middle Eastern reality has once again shown that any attempt to redraw regional balances through force is doomed to break against the cultural, political, and religious complexities of the region.

Beyond the self-congratulatory narratives, the strategic landscape remains largely unchanged: Iran has not been subdued, Israel has not secured lasting superiority, and the United States has failed to achieve the long-desired regime change envisioned by neoconservative circles. Instability is merely suspended, not resolved. What remains is a latent fracture, ready to reopen, fueled by an international system that seems to have lost the capacity to conceive of peace not as a pause between wars, but as a just and shared order.

Beyond Nuclear: Tehran as a Geopolitical Pivot

Iran's nuclear program was merely a pretext for a broader geopolitical contest. Tehran stands at the heart of two major Eurasian vectors: China's Belt and Road Initiative and Russia's North-South corridor. A stable Iran strengthens the Moscow-Beijing axis, whereas its destabilization would be a strategic blow to the multipolar ambitions challenging Western dominance.

Within this context, hybrid warfare operations have taken root: cyberattacks, targeted sabotage of civilian and military infrastructure, and attempts to stir internal dissent. Independent analyzes suggest efforts have been made to trigger a social crisis capable of preceding institutional collapse.

Washington's Shadow Behind Israeli Operations

The Israeli offensive launched on June 13, 2025, targeting sites such as Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, was not a unilateral act. Israel operated with logistical, intelligence, and political backing from the United States, in what now clearly appears to be a coordinated, multi-layered attack. Regime change has long been an openly stated objective within US neocon circles.

Initial hesitation from the Pentagon, revealed in leaked reports, reflected fears of a second war front as the Ukrainian crisis continues. Yet joint action was ultimately authorized under pressure from the more hawkish wing of Congress, represented by figures like Tom Cotton, a vocal advocate for war against Iran.

Iranian Resilience and a Measured Counterstrike

Despite losses, including high-ranking officers and nuclear technicians, Tehran demonstrated a surprising capacity for adaptation. The June 22 counterattack, which saw missiles fired at a US base in Qatar, was publicly dismissed by Trump, but did not go unnoticed by military leadership.

Crucially, the IRGC maintained control over enriched materials, relocating them to undisclosed sites. Furthermore, Iran refrained from fully activating regional allies like Hezbollah and the Houthis—a tactical choice to preserve their strength for a broader future confrontation.

US Retrenchment and Eurasian Pressure

The ceasefire declared by Trump on June 23, touted as “mutually desired,” seems in reality to have resulted from external pressures, especially from Russia and China. Putin met with Iran's foreign minister the same day, reaffirming the strategic alliance, while Beijing publicly condemned the violations of Iranian sovereignty, maintaining a more diplomatic tone.

Few know that China had significantly increased imports of Iranian oil in the weeks leading up to the conflict—a clear signal of economic backing despite sanctions. This further confirms Iran's integration into the anti-hegemonic bloc that challenges Western unipolarity.

An Unstable Grim Awaiting the Next Clash

The current grim lacks any structured agreement and is already undermined by belligerent Israeli rhetoric. Tensions in Gaza and southern Lebanon suggest the next round of conflict may erupt soon. Meanwhile, Iran has strengthened both its military and diplomatic stance, demonstrating that the attempt at destabilization has failed.

According to independent observers, Russia and China not only avoided entanglement but have capitalized on the situation: they can now negotiate from a strengthened position, while the United States remains stretched across multiple fronts without a clear Middle East strategy.

A Lesson Ignored by the Italian Media

It is truly disconcerting to see how nearly all mainstream Italian commentators, across major newspapers and televised talk shows, completely misread the real implications of these events. There was talk of a “decisive blow” to Iran, of a mythical “nuclear disarmament,” even of a supposed “withdrawal of Russian and Chinese support.” None of these claims hold up. Yet we can be sure that at the next crisis, the same analysts will reappear in prime time, recycling the same prefabricated narratives, unchallenged by accountability.

To this, we must add an even more toxic misconception: the widely internalized belief that Iran is relentlessly driven by a desire to annihilate Israel, supposedly racing toward acquiring a nuclear bomb to achieve that goal. This apocalyptic vision, obsessively repeated in the media, rests on a systemic prejudice: the portrayal of the Islamic Republic as a fanatical, undemocratic, and barbaric regime—the worst in the Middle East. But this image, however widespread, is a deliberate political and media construction, meant to justify aggressive policies against Tehran.

Understanding today's Iran requires recalling its modern history, marred by long-standing Western interference. It all began in 1953, when a coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadeq, guilty of having nationalized Iran's oil resources. The Shah was reinstated to safeguard Western interests, ushering in decades of authoritarianism and forced Westernization.

And there is more: in 1979, it was the West—particularly France—that facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini from exile near Paris. The Islamic Revolution, often reduced to a medieval regression, was also a profound response to foreign interference and the systematic auctioning of national resources. It did not arise from a vacuum, nor was it purely religious ideology.

Another crucial, lesser-known fact: it was Washington, in the 1950s and '60s, that actively promoted Iran's nuclear program through Eisenhower's 1953 “ Atoms for Peace ” initiative. The US helped the Shah build Iran's first nuclear reactor in 1967, providing 93% enriched uranium and specialized technicians. The stated goal was the peaceful development of nuclear energy, and Iran had plans to build up to 23 reactors. All of this occurred with full Western consent—as long as the monarchy remained in control. Thus, it is paradoxical and hypocritical that what was initially encouraged by the US is now demonized.

As for the current program, Iran only began enriching uranium above the JCPOA's 3.67% limit after the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018. Until then, it had fully complied with the imposed restrictions, as confirmed by the IAEA. The increase to 60% enrichment was framed as a negotiation tactic, not a rush to a bomb. Even today, Iran has not crossed the 90% threshold required for military use, and neither the IAEA nor Western agencies have ever uncovered concrete evidence of a weapons program.

Even the oft-quoted statements about “destroying Israel” should be re-examined in context. Though rhetorically harsh and hostile, they do not translate into an actual strategy of annihilation, let alone a nuclear plan. Iran's positions belong to a geopolitical and ideological confrontation, not a religious or ethnic war.

Lastly, reducing Iran to a “barbaric” state ignores its rich cultural heritage, one of the highest education levels in the Middle East, the dynamism of its civil society, and the complexity of its political system. Despite evident limitations, Iran features elections, parliamentary debates, internal pluralism between conservatives and reformists, and a vibrant public discourse.

In conclusion, the caricature of Iran as irrational and aggressive merely serves to justify a permanent campaign of aggression through sanctions, sabotage, targeted killings, and disinformation. Those who truly care about peace and regional stability must begin with historical truth, acknowledge Western responsibility, and reject the toxic narratives that are shamelessly recycled with each new crisis.

Conclusion – Peace Is Not Born of Calculation

Ultimately, this crisis reminds us that no strategy, however sophisticated, can fully dominate reality. Neither military power nor diplomatic maneuvering can contain the irreducibility of human beings and peoples to the logic of force. Iran, in this instance, did not achieve a military victory, but it endured. And that endurance reveals a deeper truth: peace is not the mere absence of war, but the presence of a meaning worth comparing every challenge for—a meaning that arises not from propaganda or might, but from a living awareness of one's destiny.