Rising tensions over Iran’s uncertain future and its ongoing standoff with the West have put the media on constant alert. Analysts, much like stockbrokers, attempt to predict every move by Trump, while news outlets circulate opinions and analyses built on assumptions.

For the public, this produces confusion and fear: should we brace for war, or not?

What follows is not a prediction of what will happen, nor a recounting of past events. Rather, it is an attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the current situation: what is really behind the tension dominating the headlines? Are we truly witnessing a ceasefire, or simply preparing for a larger confrontation?

To explore this, we need to look at the situation from Iran’s perspective and how it aligns with certain interpretations of radical Islam. The world watches Trump, as if the next move rests entirely in his hands. But what if, in the meantime, unseen moves are being made on the other side, moves that require preparation we may be overlooking?

The West as the “Enemy of Islam”

Some assume that a liberal Iran, with a new government leaving behind the rule of the ayatollahs, could be a positive development. But it’s important to understand that perspectives within Iran and the wider Islamic world are far from uniform.

Historical context helps. During Napoleon’s invasions of Egypt at the end of the 18th century, citizens of the Ottoman Empire debated the nature of the relationship between the West and the Middle East in a time of social transformation. Some advocated for Western assistance to dismantle the Empire, while others feared that Western influence would erase Islamic tradition.

This illustrates a long-standing ambivalence: even today, parts of the Islamic world harbor deep mistrust of the West, even alongside voices calling for cooperation. Recognizing this is crucial: future peace, alliances, or cooperation may not fit the ideals of the modern Western world.

This brings us to the current pause in hostilities. What does this ceasefire really mean? And, as speculated in the press, where might events lead in the moments before a potential strike by Trump or Israel?

The Hudna Is Not the End of the War

After the 12-day war in Gaza, with hostages returned and Hamas weakened but not defeated we might perceive a temporary armistice. Yet appearances can be deceptive. While Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire, Hezbollah in the north remains unpredictable. Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been constrained, but that does not mean the country has been defeated or that any potential strike would bring a final resolution.

The Middle East may be experiencing a hudna, an Arabic term meaning “calm.” Western media often translate this as a ceasefire that could be broken if Trump attacks. Yet in Islamic tradition, a hudna is a temporary truce one that allows parties to regroup and prepare for future confrontation.

In other words, while the West sees a pause, some actors in the Arab world may see a strategic opportunity to buy time. And this is precisely the stage we are in.

Agreements in the Region

In the Middle East, armistices are rarely seen as final solutions. Unlike Western thinking which often views a ceasefire as a step toward lasting peace many regional conflicts treat agreements as temporary phases within a broader strategy. They are not the end of the fight, but a tactical pause.

Political Islam offers a different lens. When a side is temporarily weak, it may agree to a truce without abandoning its long-term objectives. This concept is linked to taqiyah, the practice of concealing intentions to preserve strength and buy time.

Some describe this as a “war of deception”: agreements are phases within an ongoing conflict, not its conclusion. The ultimate goal consolidating Islamic influence remains, even if a temporary truce is accepted. Historically, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah exemplifies this logic.

Within this framework, different stages of conflict can be identified:

Hudna: temporary ceasefire, a strategic pause to regroup and strengthen.

Tahidiyah: preliminary calm before the hudna, a reduction in hostilities.

Sulha: localized reconciliation or agreement, often limited in scope.

Salam: full peace, representing the final state of Islamic governance and order.

From this perspective, ceasefires are not endpoints but milestones in a long-term strategy. Understanding this difference is crucial for interpreting events and political dynamics in the region.

Even if Trump surprises with the timing or method of a potential offensive and many assume he will act eventually it is important to recognize that a Western military victory does not necessarily signal the end of conflict from the Middle Eastern perspective.

In the strategic thinking of the region, defeat does not mean surrender it often signals a phase of reorganization. Pauses after conflict are opportunities to rebuild capacity, redefine strategy, and prepare for the next move.

Any military action by the West must account for this: a tactical victory does not automatically translate into lasting peace. Instead, it may mark a new phase in a longer, ongoing conflict. Recognizing this distinction is key to understanding the true dynamics at play.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)