After The Strike: Why Trump’s Ceasefire Isn’t the Endgame 

History often turns in silence, not thunder. For all the noise of missiles and headlines, what matters now is not the strike itself—but what follows. President Trump’s decision to launch a targeted strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed swiftly by a public call for de-escalation and the announcement of a ceasefire, has once again upended the global strategic chessboard.

For critics and supporters alike, this duality—military assertiveness followed by diplomatic moderation—raises questions. Has the strike deterred Iran and its allies, or merely paused their ambitions? Is the ceasefire a prelude to peace, or a tactical breather in a long-running regional struggle? And more broadly: what message does this send to the so-called “axis of authoritarians”—Russia, China, Iran, North Korea—that the Trump administration claims to be confronting?

A Calculated Strike with Global Ripples

The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not random. It was highly selective, designed to degrade capability without triggering full-scale war. By avoiding civilian areas and by giving quiet backchannel warnings to regional partners in the Gulf, the U.S. sent a clear signal: we’re watching, we’re capable, and we’re willing to act.

But let’s be clear. The immediate effect was not just military—it was geoeconomic. Oil prices surged. Markets shivered. Military bases across the Gulf went on high alert. And, crucially, Moscow and Beijing took notice. It is no coincidence that Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev issued a fiery condemnation mere hours before Iranian missiles were intercepted over Qatar.

This wasn’t just about Iran. It was about reasserting U.S. willpower at a time when much of the world had begun to doubt it.

Ceasefire or Strategic Pause?

Trump’s ceasefire announcement the next day surprised many. It came with characteristic flair and bravado, but the underlying intention was measured: to halt the spiral before it widened, while retaining the advantage of momentum.

And it worked—at least for now. No further Iranian missile launches have occurred. The Gulf states have breathed a cautious sigh of relief. And Trump has been quick to position the episode as proof of strength and statesmanship.

Yet we must be careful not to mistake stillness for stability. The Middle East does not operate on Western timeframes. What appears calm today can erupt tomorrow with little warning. Iran’s proxies—from Hezbollah to Houthi rebels—have long memories and flexible methods. The ceasefire may hold in name, but the field remains dynamic.

What’s more, the broader conflict between the West and the authoritarian bloc is not driven by isolated incidents, but by long-term interests. Iran wants regional dominance. China seeks global reordering. Russia wants Western exhaustion. They do not move in sync, but they benefit from chaos. And so, while the strike may have disrupted their rhythm, it has not removed their intent.

Pompeo’s “Axis of Authoritarians”: Shaken or Reinforced?

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was quick to praise the strike, claiming it shook the “axis of authoritarians” and reasserted American dominance. His assessment deserves consideration—but also caution.

Indeed, the strike forced a recalculation. China issued carefully-worded criticism, stopping short of outright escalation. Russia blustered, but held fire. Iran postured, then paused. For a moment, the axis looked fractured—if not fearful.

But strategic actors don’t show all their cards at once. Beijing may prefer to avoid Middle East entanglements, but it will watch for openings to cast the U.S. as reckless. Moscow thrives on chaos and could use this moment to deepen energy ties with Iran or stir discontent in allied states. And Iran itself may not retaliate now—but it will adapt.

The danger is this: when adversaries feel cornered, they don’t always retreat—they morph.

The Real Test: Turning Force into Framework

If the strike and the ceasefire are to mean anything beyond the moment, they must become part of a coherent strategic framework. That means:

1. Regional Alignment – Gulf allies must be reassured, not just informed. Intelligence sharing, coordinated defense posture, and joint economic resilience planning should follow immediately.
   
2. Narrative Management – The U.S. must control the story. This cannot be cast globally as American aggression. The ceasefire should be positioned as a commitment to peace after deterrence—not as hesitation or weakness.
   
3. Coalition Diplomacy – While Trump often prefers unilateralism, this moment demands re-engagement with allies. Europe, fractured as it is, needs clarity. So does India. Even quiet coordination with Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia will help inoculate against broader fallout.
   
4. Domestic Energy Policy – Demanding lower oil prices after launching a strike in the Gulf is economically tone-deaf. The administration must match its geopolitical muscle with an energy strategy that balances supply, investment, and resilience.
   
5. Engagement with Congress and the Public – This moment cannot be just another headline. It must be discussed, debated, and understood—not just marketed. America’s democratic institutions must be part of the strategic conversation.
   

Africa and the Global South: Watching Closely

From the vantage point of Africa and other emerging regions, this episode sends signals too. Many governments, already wary of Western inconsistency, will be asking: Is this the new model of U.S. foreign policy? Swift, hard strikes followed by self-managed de-escalation?

For countries juggling relations with both Washington and Beijing—or depending on Gulf stability for economic health—this model creates new uncertainties. If the U.S. can shift from confrontation to conciliation in 24 hours, what assurances do others have when choosing sides?

African leaders must therefore study this not just as a military episode, but as a geopolitical playbook. The lesson? Understand power not as loudness, but as leverage. Trump used both—momentarily well. But without follow-through, leverage evaporates.

Conclusion: Peace Is the Harder Part

There’s no doubt the world just received a warning shot. But the deeper message will be written in the days and months ahead. If this ceasefire holds—and if it leads to a broader diplomatic framework—it could represent a rare fusion of force and foresight.

But if it remains just a momentary pause in a larger cycle of provocation, then the strike will be remembered not as a turning point—but as a spark.

The work ahead is not to celebrate the calm, but to cement it—and to ensure it becomes more than the absence of war. That requires strategy, statecraft, and stamina.

Let’s hope the administration has enough of all three.

Dr Brian O Reuben is the Executive Chairman of the Sixteenth Council and Special Envoy on European Transformation and Global Coherence