In a stunning declaration posted earlier today on his Truth Social platform, former U.S. President Donald J. Trump claimed that a complete and total ceasefire agreement has been reached between Israel and Iran, potentially bringing an end to what he christened the “12-Day War.” The message, exuberant in tone and triumphalist in structure, was delivered with the cadence of a global victory speech. It congratulates both countries for their “stamina, courage, and intelligence” and suggests that a phased, mutual de-escalation will begin within six hours, culminating in a full cessation of hostilities within twenty-four hours. Trump’s language was unambiguous, grandiose, and highly celebratory — praising both Israel and Iran in the same breath, while invoking divine blessing upon the United States, the Middle East, and the world.
Yet, as the world absorbs the weight of such a pronouncement, seasoned analysts, international media outlets, and regional observers are raising a crucial question: is this historic announcement grounded in diplomatic reality, or is it yet another example of political theater in the shadow of a dangerous war?
As of this hour, no official confirmation has been issued by either the Israeli or Iranian governments. The announcement appears to have originated solely from Trump’s camp, with no verification from the Biden administration, the United Nations, the European Union, or key regional mediators such as Turkey, Qatar, or Oman. In Tel Aviv, military analysts and government insiders have maintained a strategic silence, neither affirming nor denying the substance of the ceasefire claim. Meanwhile, Iranian media outlets, including Tasnim and Press TV, remain muted on the matter, their focus still trained on the aftermath of the missile exchanges and the retaliatory bombings of nuclear installations near Fordow and Natanz.
This diplomatic silence is deafening. It signals either a rapidly developing secret negotiation that has yet to surface — or a unilateral assertion by a political actor hoping to shape global perception before facts are fully on the table.
The war itself has been a whirlwind of destruction and maneuvering. It erupted suddenly and savagely after Israel, acting on undisclosed intelligence reportedly shared by Western allies, launched a series of precision strikes against what it described as active weapons development facilities deep within Iranian territory. Iran’s response was immediate and forceful — salvos of missiles, swarms of drones, and a declared military operation coded “Besharat al-Faith,” targeting Israeli strategic assets and military installations. The United States, caught between its alliance with Israel and its own war-weary public, launched limited strikes under “Operation Midnight Hammer,” aimed at disabling Iran’s nuclear capabilities without dragging American troops into a protracted regional conflict.
The regional temperature rose to a boiling point. Hezbollah threatened to enter the conflict from Lebanon’s southern border. Houthi militants in Yemen, sensing opportunity or obligation, began targeting Israeli and Saudi-linked shipping routes. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard hinted at activating sleeper cells in foreign capitals. And while some Arab nations called for restraint, others quietly supported efforts to neutralize Iran’s growing influence, fearing the consequences of a nuclear-armed theocracy at their doorstep.
Into this geopolitical minefield steps Trump — a man known as much for his unpredictable rhetoric as for his unconventional diplomacy. His post reads as a self-assigned peace accord, delivered not from Camp David or Geneva but from his social media pulpit. It speaks of a three-phase ceasefire: the first twelve hours initiated by Iran, the second twelve hours led by Israel, and a final hour that would “be saluted by the world” as the end of the conflict. No mention is made of the negotiating process, the mediators involved, or the security guarantees provided. There is no timeline for verification, no mention of observers, and no documentation beyond the post itself.
And yet, even in the absence of confirmation, the sheer fact of such a declaration is worthy of deep analysis. Is this Trump attempting to pre-empt President Biden on a potential breakthrough? Is it an appeal to his base, a demonstration of leadership on the global stage just months before the U.S. presidential election? Or is it, possibly, a tactical pressure campaign — a calculated bluff meant to force both sides toward an actual ceasefire under the glare of global attention?
In the court of global diplomacy, perception can be as powerful as policy. If Israel and Iran were indeed inching toward a truce — brokered perhaps behind closed doors by back-channel intermediaries in Moscow, Beijing, or Istanbul — then Trump’s announcement may have served as an accelerant, pushing all parties to finalize the deal or risk being painted as spoilers of peace. But if no such deal exists, his words may have added yet another layer of confusion, raising false hopes among war-weary civilians, markets, and international observers.
In Tehran, the war has stirred deep nationalist sentiment. The streets of Isfahan and Mashhad have seen large gatherings, both in protest of the bombings and in support of Iran’s right to retaliate. In Israel, public opinion is sharply divided. While some rally behind Netanyahu’s hardened security stance, others question the strategic wisdom of provoking a direct war with a regional superpower, especially with domestic divisions still raw from political unrest.
Globally, reactions are cautious. The Kremlin issued a guarded statement urging “all parties to confirm any declarations with actions, not rhetoric.” The European Union called for “transparent and verifiable commitments,” while China’s foreign ministry said it would “welcome any effort that leads to genuine de-escalation and regional peace.” The United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, has not yet released a formal statement, though insiders say he is urging restraint behind the scenes and readying a multinational observer mission should ceasefire terms be made official.
If the war ends as suddenly as it began, historians will debate its implications for years. Was it a carefully controlled demonstration of power, designed to restore deterrence without spiraling into catastrophe? Was it a miscalculation that nearly ignited a regional inferno? Or was it, as some cynics argue, a high-stakes performance in a theater where civilians are casualties and truth is the first victim?
For now, the world holds its breath. Six hours will pass. Then twelve. Then twenty-four. Satellites will watch. Journalists will listen. Diplomats will wait. And soldiers on both sides will prepare — either for withdrawal or for one final round of fire.
The Middle East has been here before, at the edge of war and peace. What remains to be seen is whether this time, the edge gives way to resolution — or simply another precipice.
History is not yet written. But in this moment, suspended between fire and hope, the world waits for reality to match rhetoric.
And in the silence between missiles and messages, the question lingers: is peace finally at hand, or is this the loudest whisper in a world still bracing for war?
By : Jide Adesina
1stafrika.com
June 23, 2025
