By Mohamed Fawaz Hassen –

Mohamed Fawaz Hassen

Reports circulating in the media claim that a two-week ceasefire, effective from April 8, 2026, has been established in the war that the United States and Israel allegedly initiated unlawfully against Iran. However, serious questions remain as to whether this is a genuine ceasefire. Doubts arise particularly over whether the ten conditions proposed by Iran align with the actions of the United States.

Moreover, despite the announcement of the ceasefire, Israel has launched a large-scale attack on Lebanon, resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives and further destabilising the region. Although Pakistan has presented itself as a mediator in brokering this ceasefire, it is questionable whether the country is in a suitable position to play such a role. Considering the close relationship between the United States and the Pakistani military, this development is not entirely surprising. Indeed, this closeness appears to have a significant influence over Pakistan’s political landscape, where elections are increasingly seen as failing to reflect true popular sovereignty.

In the context of the Palestinian issue, Qatar has also played a mediating role. However, the use of U.S. military bases in Qatar to launch attacks against Iran prompted Iran to retaliate by targeting American installations within Qatari territory. These attacks raised serious concerns among Qatari authorities regarding the safety of civilians and public infrastructure. The United States, however, appeared primarily concerned with relocating its military assets to secure locations, paying little attention to the risks imposed on Qatar as a result of its military strategy.

While it may now be assumed that Qatar could become more reluctant to support such high-risk operations in the future, it is also true that Qatar itself historically invited U.S. military presence. The current ceasefire, shaped largely by U.S. interests, can therefore be interpreted as a strategic manoeuvre consistent with past patterns of behaviour. It is highly likely that Iran is aware of this reality.

In truth, the war against Iran initiated under the Trump administration appears unsustainable for the United States. Among several reasons, the conduct of military operations driven by what critics describe as Trump’s lack of sophistication and impulsive rhetoric stands out. Previous U.S. administrations, while also engaging in controversial military actions, tended to operate with greater subtlety and diplomatic framing. By contrast, Trump’s approach to governance and international relations has often reflected a mindset in which other nations are treated as subordinates.

His public statement suggesting that Iran’s civilisation could be destroyed overnight; while arguably reflective of underlying imperial attitudes, has dealt a significant blow to the credibility of U.S. intentions by making such views explicit. Although Trump himself may not fully grasp the gravity of such remarks, they are widely regarded as deeply troubling within the broader context of U.S. policy.

At the same time, one could argue that there is a paradoxical positive aspect to Trump’s actions, they have made U.S. conduct more visible to ordinary people around the world. This exposure has, in turn, challenged long-standing perceptions of the United States as a humanitarian and peace-oriented nation. Notably, several European countries, traditionally aligned with the U.S. have shown increasing reluctance to support its current policies.

For instance, during the Iraq War, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair reportedly assured President George W. Bush with the words: “I will be with you, whatever,” as documented in the Chilcot Report.

During the Iraq intervention, Saddam Hussein was prosecuted and punished within Iraqi territory under a legal framework established domestically. Importantly, he was not abducted and tried under U.S. law. This raises critical legal questions. Does the United States possess the authority to apprehend and prosecute foreign leaders under its own legal system? What legal provisions justify such actions? The alleged abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro under Trump’s administration has further complicated these legal and ethical issues, potentially exposing Trump to future legal accountability.

Domestically, there have been growing calls, particularly from Democratic senators to invoke the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to remove Trump from office, citing concerns over his fitness to govern. Notably, support for such action has reportedly emerged from both Democratic and Republican circles. If Trump is removed from office, Vice President J.D. Vance would assume power. It is clear that Vance is biding his time, waiting for the right opportunity. Many of his past statements critical of Trump are visible on social media.

When considering this constitutional matter in America, it is often treated as an issue of internal importance rather than one that directly concerns other countries. However, the broader implications of American political decisions frequently extend beyond its borders.

The Democratic Party, like other major political forces in the United States, is not inherently a non-violent entity. In reality, regardless of , whichever party comes to power in America, whichever president is elected there remains a consistent strategic framework; they have an American white‑supremacist imperial plan to carry out. It is the mindset that America alone must stand above the rest of the world.

Within this perspective, it is the belief that any problem they face must be treated as a problem for the entire world, not just for themselves.

There is also an underlying belief system that assigns comparative value: the value of American children is placed above that of others; the life of an American national is seen as more significant than that of individuals from other nations. Even if their so‑called civilization is one built on bloodshed, it must still be regarded as the most valuable civilization in the world

Their culture is seen as superior to others; protecting the American economy is seen as more important than the economies of other countries. The American dollar is given more value than any other currency.”

It is also important not to overlook the actions of Democratic leadership. Following the events of October 7, 2023, statements made by President Joe Biden, including widely disputed claims regarding violence against Israeli infants have been heavily criticised. His remark that one need not be Jewish to be a Zionist further underscores the ideological dimensions of U.S. policy.

A historical example illustrating the severity of U.S. policy decisions can be found in a 1996 interview in which journalist Lesley Stahl questioned then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about the humanitarian impact of sanctions on Iraq.

Stahl: “We have heard that half a million Iraqi children have died… more than in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?”
Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

Despite the current ceasefire declaration, Israel has reportedly carried out attacks in Lebanon resulting in over 250 deaths. The response from both Israel and the United States has been that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire agreement.

In conclusion, even if a ceasefire has been formally declared, it is reasonable to question whether it represents a genuine effort toward peace or merely a continuation of strategic military calculations by the United States.