Laurent Mazaury, Deputy of Yvelines, member of the Foreign Affairs Commission at the National Assembly and municipal councilor in Elancourt (78)
Forty days of war, then silence. Not the silence of victory, but a more ambiguous one of mutual exhaustion. The ceasefire between Washington and Tehran looks less like a conclusion and more like a pause imposed by circumstances.
Before drawing conclusions, we must first face what this conflict has truly produced.
Neither winner nor loser, strictly speaking. The United States demonstrated the extent of their firepower, but in an asymmetrical war, a show of strength is not enough to define victory. A drone breaching American defenses weighs as heavily as a rain of missiles on the Revolutionary Guards’ infrastructure. Worse, with the poorly executed maritime blockade and the rise in oil prices, it is Donald Trump himself who appears to be succumbing to market pressure.
Iran, on the other hand, emerges transformed but not triumphant. The regime has become more radicalized, the Revolutionary Guards have solidified their hold, sweeping away what remained of voices in favor of negotiation or eliminated by American strikes. The human and material cost of these forty days remains to be measured, and it will be heavy. Two certainties nonetheless emerge. Tehran has crossed a threshold by controlling the Strait of Hormuz. It is no longer a threat brandished for decades; it is now an exercised right of passage. The maritime and commercial world is structurally altered, with the Gulf countries and Western public opinions as the primary hostages. The other certainty, counterintuitive yet relentless, is that nuclear mastery is now the only assurance for the regime’s long-term survival. This ceasefire resolves nothing on this fundamental point; it merely shifts it.
The true winners are not where they were expected. Israel emerges with reinforced regional dominance, becoming the structuring power of a reshaped Middle East. China, surprisingly silent throughout hostilities, maintained strategic ties with Tehran without exposure, and its analyses on the limits of American power now hold more weight than its temporary economic losses. As for Russia, it has found a breath of fresh air. By supporting Iranian strikes in the conflict’s final days without attracting Washington’s wrath, Moscow took the opportunity to massively boost its energy exports, loosening the grip of Western sanctions.
The losers, on the other hand, are unequivocal. The Iranian civilian society, after years of oppression and tens of thousands dead in January, now faces an even more closed-off regime, emboldened by its resistance against its historical enemy, with no opening in sight. The Gulf countries have revealed, through their passivity, a deep vulnerability. The American military presence on their soil, meant to guarantee their protection against the Iranian threat, is now perceived as much as a target as a shield. This represents a considerable strategic shift. The Europeans, as powerless spectators, once again assess the cost of their strategic absence.
This assessment can only be provisional, but for now, it is overwhelming. Forty thousand Iranian deaths in January and February, a regime transitioning from the mullahs to the Revolutionary Guards, the possibility of uranium enrichment resuming, the ballistic program continuing unhindered, and the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control, now wielded as a pressure instrument on global trade. And tomorrow, the Strait of Malacca, the main route for China and Japan’s oil supply?
Not to mention that the Gulf States, our main allies, emerge weakened.
The volatility of the three belligerents, the uncertainties of the Iranian nuclear dossier, and the reshuffling of global balances ensure that this ceasefire is not the end. At best, it is a respite. For this still provisional assessment, the American-Israeli intervention resembles what we dare not yet fully name: a strategic failure.
