The world needs peace, and, unfortunately, not all the countries we are talking about are champions of it. Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK . Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su To trust or not to trust? General premise: it is a widely held and shared view that peace will be achieved in the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the restoration of a peaceful and optimal regional balance for the entire world. There is no doubt about this. The US and Iran have announced through official channels that they have reached a peace agreement, which is expected to be signed in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 19, 2026. The world rejoiced.
The crux of the matter is that we are talking about “peace” with two countries, the US and Israel, which are the main instigators of most of the wars of the last 100 years; therefore, some doubts are more than legitimate. Let’s try to address these doubts from a geopolitical perspective, point by point. 1) New maps, but under which flag? The parties involved are who they are, and we cannot change them. Israel and the US have launched yet another conflict against Iran, causing damage on a global scale. The conflict has spread to all conventional and hybrid domains, turning into a massive exercise in new forms of conflict. Significant structural damage has been inflicted on Israeli infrastructure and on American infrastructure in allied countries, causing a truly major regional disaster, so much so that all the countries involved—especially the pro-American and pro-Zionist ones—have found themselves having to retract their positions.
All of this implies a redrawing of the region’s maps. Iran is the new power capable of independently managing the entire area and has demonstrated its ability to stand up to two nuclear superpowers, while keeping the other countries in the Arab world in check; at the same time, it has reshaped its relations with China and Russia, consolidating previous agreements and establishing new frameworks for the future. In short, the map will no longer be as it was before.
Now it is up to diplomacy to determine whether Iran will actually be allowed to govern the region, or not. Iranian control would pose an existential threat to Israel, which has sought to destroy Islamic and revolutionary Iran since the proclamation of the republic, and would also mean a total disengagement of the U.S. from the region, causing the petrodollar to lose even more power.
The question is: will the United States really be willing to lose so much influence, or is this just a tactic to buy time and then return to the attack? 2) Making peace with one’s enemy We must in fact consider two objective and well-established truths: both the United States and Israel hate Iran. Donald Trump’s public stance is clear, and there is no doubt about it. That of Netanyahu and his entourage is even clearer. Can we speak of “peace” with two states that want Iran’s destruction? The last three and a half years of conflict have further demonstrated—though it was already clear—that Israel’s existence is a danger to the health of the entire world, not just West Asia. Is peace credible, knowing that Israel has vowed to destroy Iran, that the Israeli leadership is still firmly in place and nothing has changed, that Israel is accustomed to attacking, biding its time, and then attacking again? Especially since Israel has never ceased hostilities, to the extent that it continues to bomb Lebanon, in line with the Greater Israel project, a project in which the United States is the primary partner. 3) Peace from the Iranian Perspective Here the Iranian perspective comes into play. For Iran, Israel has become an existential threat. It is no longer just a matter of the Axis of Resistance or not; it is now a problem for the entire Republic and its citizens. Israel intends to push forward with its own project, and Iran is the protector and defender of all Arab countries that have continued to be attacked by the Zionist entity for decades. A “half-measure peace”—such as making concessions on the Lebanese front, for example—would be intolerable. On this point, however, some doubts arise, given that there had already been a concession in Palestine regarding Hamas and the dismantling of the Palestinian armed resistance. It is a controversial and highly sensitive issue, for which we will have to await further developments. 4) Hormuz We thus arrive at the issue of greatest global interest: the Strait of Hormuz. It is likely that the reopening of the strait was the main driving force behind the U.S. desire to find a solution. The leadership in Washington needs to rebalance the markets and temper the anger of other countries around the world affected by the disastrous closure of the strait. The benefit, in this sense, is almost exclusively Western.
Then there is the question of what comes “after Hormuz”: new transit regulations from Iran, new tariffs, a new authority to manage the shipping channel, but also new investors to rebuild the trade routes that have been devastated by bankruptcy and sky-high costs, and new investors to rapidly develop new land routes. A massive financial mechanism will be set in motion; that much is certain.
Iran will have to play a sophisticated communication strategy if it wants to maintain cognitive control over the strait and the outcome of this war (already dubbed the Third Defense War by Iranian authorities, the Third Gulf War by Western media). Otherwise, the impact would be enormously negative and highly risky for managing dissent within the country. 5) Save or destroy? We have already noted how the closure of Hormuz served to further undermine Europe’s finances, as Europe was already committed to waging war against Russia, effectively decreeing its own physical suicide after having already committed economic suicide through the boomerang effect of sanctions and hostility toward the East. This blockade operation has been incredibly effective in weakening Europe—an interest shared by the U.S., Russia, and other countries. Reopening Hormuz would seem, at first glance, to be a sort of lifeline for European countries, which would regain some breathing room for trade and resources. But is all this really worth it?
Moreover, the closure of the Strait has favored the structure established by the BRICS+, benefiting the new multipolar routes. Hormuz could be reopened only on the condition that it serves the BRICS+ agenda, not in conflict with it. We must therefore expect many changes in the coming weeks, perhaps entirely unexpected.
It is not certain that Europe will regain its strength. All of this could represent the final price to pay for its self-imposed isolation, a sort of new tool of political pressure to achieve European disarmament and a change in political leadership. While waiting for the fruits, let’s look at the tree If it is true that a tree is known by its fruits, then we will have to wait a few more days. The signing of the agreement could even be canceled following some reckless attempt at destabilization, particularly by Israel, which has already boycotted the peace negotiations on multiple occasions. In the absence of fruit, we can look at the tree, realizing that there is something unhealthy at the root of two of the three trees we see before us.
The world needs peace, and, unfortunately, not all the countries we are talking about are champions of it.