While Iranians had been holding their breath in anticipation of possible targeting of the country’s power stations and the resulting repercussions affecting various aspects of daily life, many exhaled with the announcement of a ceasefire and its entry into force at the time set by US President Donald Trump for the start of bombing those facilities.
In this atmosphere of relief, a narrative of "victory" quickly prevailed in Iran, as the Supreme National Security Council said in a statement on the ceasefire that what had happened constituted a "great victory".
However, Iranian circles still have questions and concerns about whether this truce will lead to an agreement in the anticipated negotiations in Pakistan that reflects the state of "steadfastness and resistance" shown by the country during 40 days of war or whether the United States will use the two-week truce period to strengthen its military capabilities in the region before resuming fighting.
Amid this atmosphere, details of the ceasefire agreement remain unclear, except for a two-week halt in combat operations and the announcement of negotiations beginning in Pakistan .
It is also not yet clear whether the agreement includes arrangements for transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz during this period, an issue many Iranians view as a strategic card that could be leveraged in any future agreement to compensate for some of the war losses and confront sanctions.
Attention in Iran is therefore turning to negotiations, expected to begin in Pakistan, but what has given Iranians a notable degree of confidence is Trump's announcement early on Wednesday that the negotiations will be conducted based on a 10-point proposal that Iran submitted to Washington.
Meanwhile, whether Lebanon is included in the ceasefire is a point of contention. While Iran and Pakistan announced that the understanding also includes Lebanon, Israel claims Lebanon is excluded from the truce. Victory? The narrative of victory is not limited to official Iranian discourse, which viewed the war as an "existential battle" in which it lost senior commanders, foremost among them the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, but also extends to its critics.
Alongside many opponents, they saw at a particular moment during the past two weeks that the war did not target only the political system but also Iran in its existence and foundations after entering a phase of targeting infrastructure.
In this context, Iranian analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi, known for his criticism of Iranian policies, said what happened constitutes a "remarkable political victory for Iran", noting that it "will not only be recorded in history but also opens a horizon of hope and self-confidence for the coming days". Zeidabadi told The New Arab that the country suffered significant damage and losses and sustained many wounds during the war. Still, these losses can be compensated in light of a general sense of victory, "as long as the path of wisdom and management has not been lost", as he put it.
He said Iranians "will not return to how they were yesterday", stressing that the war and its results "have brought about a major change" in the internal reality.
He added that regardless of criticism or negative judgments towards some military and political officials in Iran, or what some of them may have endured, "it cannot be denied that they appeared during this difficult war with courage and competence".
He said they were able, despite continuous bombardment by missiles and bombs and constant threats of assassination, "to maintain their cohesion and deliver blows to the attacking forces", in addition to securing citizens' basic needs, including providing petrol in large quantities at low prices.
Zeidabadi also considered one of the most important developments to be that "decision-makers did not succumb to pressure from some enthusiastic or hardline supporters and did not close the door to diplomacy to end the war", arguing that this approach ultimately helped remove this danger from the country.
Conservative Iranian analyst Mirjavad Mirgholvi Bayat described ending the war after a "heroic confrontation as in itself a major victory for Iran ."
He told The New Arab that the United States and Israel failed to achieve any of their main objectives, while Tehran managed to secure "important gains"—such as imposing a new reality over transit movement in the Strait of Hormuz and the "destruction" of US bases in the region. Bayat said that "the narrative of victory cannot be built on lies or defeat", stressing that any narrative, no matter how propagandistic, will not be credible if it is not based on tangible facts.
He added that media discourse alone does not create a balance of power, but that the real strength of the state and nation, whether military, material or intellectual, is what establishes new balances of power on the ground. Why did Iran accept a previously rejected truce? While Iran had strongly rejected any temporary ceasefire, it ultimately agreed to one, raising questions about the reasons for the change.
Mirgholvi Bayat said this position was not a rejection of the principle of ending fighting, given that a ceasefire is the natural end of any war, but noted that Tehran "believed that accepting a truce should come at a moment when the attacking party realises the impossibility of achieving its objectives, and after Iranian military power has imposed an actual balance of forces, punished the aggressor, and secured acceptance of Iran's conditions".
He added that reaching such a moment, given the nature of non-traditional warfare, which cannot continue for long, made the cessation of military operations the first and natural step in any major war.
The Iranian analyst pointed to Trump's announcement of negotiations based on the Iranian 10-point proposal, the broad outlines of which were presented by the Supreme National Security Council, as "an indication of political gains for Tehran even if only part of these points are implemented".
Bayat said that evaluating the results of the ceasefire in the coming phase will depend on a set of indicators, including Iran's management of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz , its readiness to prevent the re-deployment of US military power in the region as before, in addition to its position towards neighbouring countries and the nature of its commitments to its allies in the axis of resistance.
Meanwhile, Iranian analyst Mostafa Najafi said the temporary ceasefire does not mean the end of the war but will be recorded in Iran's history as a "phase that demonstrated the country's ability to endure under extremely difficult conditions".
He told The New Arab that despite being subjected to the harshest economic sanctions and blockade for decades, Iran managed to withstand nearly 40 days in the face of a superpower possessing the largest arsenal of weapons in the world, both conventional and non-conventional, in addition to Israel as a nuclear power in the region, and also be able to "deliver effective strikes".
Najafi added that two centuries ago, Iran was subjected to occupation or division, but, in his words, what has been achieved today reflects a different trajectory based on rebuilding national independence, reviving self-confidence at the national level, and deeply strengthening components of Iranian strategic culture. What about Lebanon? Israel's behaviour is one of the most prominent challenges to the ceasefire over the next two weeks, after it announced that Lebanon is not included in the truce, while Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the Iranian side confirmed that the ceasefire covers the entire region, including Lebanon.
In this context, Iranian analyst Hadi Borhani, professor of Israeli studies at the University of Tehran, said the Israeli position that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire is a "political manoeuvre" aimed at preserving Israel's image as still holding the upper hand in the field.
Borhani said this position "will not last long", suggesting Israel will ultimately retreat and also halt its attacks on Lebanon .
He said this issue carries "great importance for Iran", stressing that Tehran cannot accept the continuation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon during the truce period, particularly in light of what he described as the "sacrifices made by Hezbollah ".
He added that Iran sees itself as "committed to defending the interests of Hezbollah and Lebanon", warning that Israel's insistence on continuing its attacks could endanger the entire ceasefire.
He also noted that Iran's possession of pressure tools, including control over navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, enables it to exert pressure on various parties, particularly the United States and other international powers, to consolidate the ceasefire.
Borhani suggested Israel may ultimately retreat under pressure from the United States and international powers, but stressed that if this does not happen, Iran , in his words, will not retreat from its position either. Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here .