The armistice was not between Iran AndIsraelIn the European media scene, just a transient title in the coverage of urgent news, but rather turned into a central topic for reading and analysis, especially in the press with analytical tendency such as Spanish Alpiais, French Le Monde, and German Deir Spiegel.
Between the lines of the openings and opinion reports, the armistice seemed to be an enlarged mirror of a broader confidence crisis, which affects the nature of crisis management in The Middle East. These newspapers did not focus on the scenes of destruction or the number of dead, but rather focused on the dismantling of the political symbolism of the timing of the calm, the language chosen by decision -makers, and the intertwined interests that prompted the parties to accept the ceasefire despite the scene and its apparent heat.
At a time when the official media in some countries were busy promoting the “symbolic victory” speech or “mutual deterrence”, European approaches came more black, and the most severe to question the sustainability of calm.
In many articles and analyzes, the concept of “armistice” underwent strict conceptual dissection, which is:
- Are we facing a real desire to reduce the escalation?
- Or is it just a tactical break imposed by circumstantial calculations?
European journalists were not satisfied with recycling the official data, but went further, asking: Who possesses the keys to continuing this truce? Do the parties concerned have the real readiness to seize them as a chance of peace, or is it just a paper in an open nerve game?
A fragile truce without guarantees
French writer Alan Frash (Le Monde newspaper) believes that cease-fire Between Iran and Israel, it does not represent an end to escalation, but rather a truce that is ambiguous and lacks any actual guarantees.
Farashon considers that this “temporary stillness” hides flammable tensions at any moment, especially in light of the continued Israeli military operations, and the parties ignored a serious diplomatic path.
For him, the absence of consensus on the fundamental files, such as the nuclear issue and the situation in Gaza, makes the armistice merely a phased station in a dispute that expands and does not recede, as the real calm conditions have not yet been met.
For her part, the Spanish writer Angeles Espinoza (Elbiais newspaper) considers that the truce does not amount to a political initiative, but rather came to contain an imminent explosion, and describes it as “a fragile coverage of a conflict whose roots interact deeply, and is nourished by the continuous hostile discourse.”
Espinoza pointed out that Tehran is looking at calm as an opportunity to show its deterrent capabilities, not as a waiver of its regional ambitions, while Israel suffers from internal erosion of confidence due to security and political confusion.
And it confirms that the absence of clear agreements, and the failure of parties such as Hezbollah, is made of this truce a fragile circumstance that cannot be stolen, noting that the major powers, especially the United States, lack a comprehensive plan that guarantees the transformation of this military stop into a real political process, especially in light of the complexities of the Iranian nuclear file, and the lack of mutual trust between the two parties.
In his article, “Netanyahu and Trump against Iran … what if they were right?” German writer Stefan Kozmanani (Der Spiegel newspaper) believes that the ceasefire between Iran and Israel did not come from sitting at the negotiating table or for prior planning, but rather was a direct response to the orders of the US President Donald Trump An immediate ceasefire from both sides.
The writer highlights his concern about this military cessation, which he describes as sudden, especially in the absence of real negotiating endeavors or an active role for European authorities, which makes this decision appear inconvenience, and therefore the return at any moment, to war and the continuation of instability, is inevitable.
As for the French journalist, Claude Gaibal (chief editor in the international section of France Inter Radio), she sheds light on the steadfastness of the Iranian regime in the face of Israeli strikes and economic pressures, as American strikes did not cause a breakthrough in the structure of the regime, and that the Iranian leadership succeeded in absorbing the escalation thanks to the internal supported cohesion, and calculated responses.
However, Kekel warns that this cohesion does not hide the fragility of the economic and political structure in Iran, which makes the future of the regime dependent on the fluctuations of the interior and the policies of the outside, especially what the United States will decide in the next stage.
The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Abdul Rahim Mousavi, doubts that Israel’s commitment to the ceasefire, which put an end to the war between it and his country, who affirmed his readiness “for a strong response to it in the event of repeated aggression”
For more: https://t.co/vzfSQ3Ugcl pic.twitter.com/kKmXF1VNb1
– aljazeera.net • Al -Jazeera Net (@AjArabicnet) June 29, 2025
On the other hand, German journalist Ronen Steinky (Zod Deutsche Zeitung newspaper) focused on the procedural side of the armistice, considering it a circumstant Security.
Steinky warns of the fragility of the existing calm, especially in light of the continuation of the activities of the regional non -governmental actors, such as Hezbollah The militias of Tehran, which possesses the ability to detonate the situation again, indicating that the Western powers, despite their celebration of the truce, do not have an integrated strategy to address the roots of the crisis, which makes the continued tension almost settled.
As for the British writer Gideon Rasman (the Financial Times newspaper), he provides an approach that is deeply questioned in the motives of the armistice, considering that it occurred as a result of international political pressure and does not actually reflect a consensus.
Rasman notes that the United States has rushed towards calm for fear of its electoral repercussions, and not within a mature diplomatic vision, and describes the truce as a “geopolitical dictation” more than an agreement stemming from negotiations, stressing that the two parties still bet on achieving strategic gains, not entering into a comprehensive settlement.
He notes that Israel did not come out with a decisive victory, while Iran is investing tension to confirm its regional position, and that the conflict is not limited to the military side, but extends to ideological and sectarian competition for influence in the region, and warns against ignoring the role of regional agents such as Iranian militias supported by Iran that may explode at any moment.
The role of Qatar and the choice of Trump
Italian journalist Gianluka Defo (LaRipopblyca) offers a more inclined approach to caution in the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, considering it a potential starting point towards a sustainable calm if it was wisely invested.
In his article entitled “The truce of Iran and Israel … the role of Qatar and the choice of Trump: How was the ceasefire reached?” Devo notes that this stop is in Hostile works It represents a rare moment to breathe in an area exhausted by continuous confrontations.
In particular, it highlights the hidden and effective role that Qatar has played, through indirect mediation and preparing a ground for confidence behind the scenes, which allowed the opening of communication channels that contributed to the crystallization of calm.
Devo believes that the US administration, specifically President Trump, played a historic role in pushing the parties towards the ceasefire, not only to contain regional tension, but also to register a political presence that enhances his image as a player influencing the international scene.
The writer notes that the truce reflected positively on some economic fronts, including energy markets, which made it achieve some immediate gains on more than one level.
Despite these positives, Devo does not hide his concern about the deterioration of conditions in both countries, recalling that this calm is very important, but rather a rare opportunity that should not be wasted, calling on the international community to build on it, and transform it from a “circumstantial opportunity” into a mature diplomatic path that leads to concrete results.
The conflict of the deportation
In a joint analysis published in the Albiais newspaper, Spanish journalists Iker Sisadus and Louis de Vega presented a critical vision of the timing and conditions of the ceasefire declaration between Iran and Israel, describing it as a “arrangement imposed by necessity” more than an initiative stemming from the parties’ conviction or convergence in positions.
The authors point out that this agreement came in a tense context in which political considerations were mixed with security, as international warnings have prompted a large -scale slide to take a calm step that does not necessarily express a fundamental shift in intentions or directions.
They refer to that Israel entered the truce burdened with confusion and internal pressure, after it failed to achieve concrete gains, which fueled a general feeling of disappointment and political pressure of the government Benjamin Netanyahu. On the other hand, Tehran dealt with calm as an opportunity to enhance its propaganda speech, based on its network of relations with the regional factions that gave her an effective pressure paper on its opponents.
The authors warn that the absence of any negotiating engineering, and the exacerbation of the ideological and sectarian division, makes the ceasefire a temporary moment fraught with risks. It also sheds light on the general popular mood, as the population, on both sides, does not view the armistice as an achievement, but rather as a fragile time, waiting for a new wave of violence.
They stress that continuing this path requires more than just fire control, but rather needs sincere political will, redefining regional priorities, and integrating marginal parties into any possible dialogue. Without this, the truce will remain – as described – a temporary superficial solution threatened with collapse at the first serious test.
In the end, the European scene confirms that the armistice between Iran and Israel is nothing but a temporary separation in a long story of the extended conflict, and that the path to a real peace is still based on political maturity, and deep regional and international understandings, which places the interests of peoples over ideological interests and military tactics.