Israel and Iran — Ceasefire by Magnanimity?
After twelve days of war, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire. Israel’s strike on Iran was swift, forceful, and highly precise. Within a matter of days, Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure was significantly impaired, and several top military commanders and nuclear scientists were killed or incapacitated, leaving the Islamic Republic with minimal capacity to mount an effective response to Israel’s preemptive attack.
The final accord was delivered by the United States, which reportedly targeted and destroyed some of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities, including Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — sites long suspected of housing key components of Iran’s uranium enrichment and weapons development programs. On Saturday night (June 22, 2025, Middle Eastern time), the joint Israeli–American operation came to a glorious conclusion.
The ceasefire that followed was equally quick. Within 24 hours of the American strikes, Iran launched a symbolic retaliation: a limited attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. That strike, however, was reportedly pre-coordinated with U.S. officials, allowing Iran to save face without triggering further escalation. The U.S. deliberately chose not to respond militarily, enabling Iran to maintain a semblance of national pride while signaling its readiness for a ceasefire.
Shortly thereafter, a ceasefire was formally announced, not before Iran launched final rounds of missiles at Israeli residential areas, tragically killing three Israeli civilians.
While such moves can appear as childish attempts to “get the last word,” they in fact reflect the logic of international posturing, where signaling strength at the moment of retreat helps the defeated party to preserve deterrence and national dignity.
Despite the damage inflicted on the Israeli home front, it was clear who prevailed militarily. Israel and the United States had undermined Iran’s offensive and nuclear capabilities so severely that Tehran had little choice but to accept a ceasefire. Still, from a strategic perspective, it seemed in everyone’s interest to allow Iran a dignified exit. A total Iranian humiliation could have provoked internal collapse or future, and perhaps more reckless retaliation. This reasoning follows the logic of what political theorists call “Peace by Magnanimity.”
What Is Peace by Magnanimity?
“Peace through magnanimity” is a diplomatic strategy in which the victor, while holding the upper hand, extends goodwill, allows the defeated party to retain its dignity, and thereby creates the foundation for future stability. It is a show of moral and political strength that avoids humiliating the weaker party, and instead offers reconciliation and the possibility of a settlement.
This approach, however, is not without risk. While it conveys moral superiority, magnanimity can also be misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued as a sign of weakness. When the dominant actor refrains from punishment, overlooks aggression, or waives reparations, the defeated side may see this as a sign to regroup, rearm, and retaliate.
When Magnanimity Backfires: Historical Precedent
One prominent example of such a path is the case of Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, in which it unilaterally withdrew all military and civilian presence from the Strip. Though some saw this as an Israeli generous and bold step toward peace, Hamas interpreted it as a sign of Israeli weakness. The terror group quickly took over Gaza, escalated its rocket attacks, and entrenched its militant presence, ultimately culminating in the October 7, 2023, massacre, one of the deadliest assaults on Israeli civilians in the country’s history.
Conversely, refusing magnanimity can be just as dangerous. For example, after World War I, the Treaty of Versailles (1919)imposed harsh reparations and humiliation on Germany, sowing the seeds for economic collapse, political radicalization, and the rise of Adolf Hitler. The punitive peace, meant to prevent another war, inadvertently led to the outbreak of World War II.
The Iran–Israel Ceasefire: A Strategic Gamble
Similar risks mark the ceasefire between Iran and Israel. Western powers are eager to return to the negotiating table in an effort to ensure that Iran does not rebuild its nuclear program. In the coming weeks, we may see increased diplomatic efforts and international engagement aimed at reaching a deal with Iran.
At this round of talks, Iran would be much weaker, severely bruised, and nearly bankrupt. It is worth remembering that for over a decade, Iran has endured crippling economic sanctions, and multiple waves of domestic protest have signaled deep dissatisfaction with the regime. The recent military confrontation further exposed Iran’s strategic vulnerabilities. Rationally, one might expect Iran’s leadership to seek cooperation and de-escalation to avoid further internal decay.
Yet, despite the overwhelming blow, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has shown no sign of surrendering or abandoning its ambitions. Until the very last moment, it sought to project an air of strength. It may be that Tehran believes Israel was also desperately seeking a ceasefire. Iran understands that the Israeli public’s soft spot is the loss of innocent life. If Iran construes this prompt ceasefire as a sign of Israel’s weakness, we may see it using this ceasefire to rehabilitate and recover from its losses, to reconstruct at full speed its nuclear program, and continue seeking ways to eliminate the only Jewish state. This time, with Israel and the world more vigilant, it will be much harder.
