The minimum you must know

On June 23, President Trump told Newsmax that Israel and Iran agreed to a “complete and total ceasefire."

The Iranian response was initially ambiguous.

However, Iran agreed!

ISRAEL is honoring the truce, Trump promised on Truth Social.

President Trump says the ceasefire will last forever.

The following article describes the events leading up to peace between Iran, the U.S.A. and Israel.

Russia said in 2024 that they want to help the U.S. to substantially improve relations with Iran. President Trump responded that Russia should first make peace with Ukraine before leading on peace with Iran.

Tel Aviv and Tehran both were both under threat of military bombardment for quite some time. Iran’s media organization was reportedly demolished by an Israeli strike mid-broadcast. (The Tehran Times is online again after extended downtime.)

According to the President of the United States, the United States military got directly involved afterward (along with Israel) to bomb the Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear power plants deep inside Iran.

While the confrontation developed, President Trump simultaneously expressed a desire for peace. “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” he told his own newspaper reporter on June 21, 2025. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

The crosses on mosques in Iran are a reminder that Muslim Iranians and Christian Americans feel essentially the same way. Perhaps the shared religious views on all sides can incline our leaders to feel peaceful. After all, Christianity, Islam and Judaism all insist on peace. It’s a commandment in the Torah. And Jesus prays throughout the Bible for peace, including on the cross in the New Testament.

President Trump called on the Supreme Leader of Iran to “surrender,” perhaps because “Islam” means surrender, and Iran is an Islamic Republic. The Supreme Leader responded that Iran would never do that, reflecting a distinction religious clerics sometimes make, when they surrender to what G-d wants, instead of to the other side.

What’s interesting is that there is a religious basis for surrendering to the other side in the original story of Jesus. Jesus surrendered to what G-d wanted and to the other side. In the Bible, Jesus essentially tells his disciples from Nazareth to surrender to the king of Jerusalem, and Jesus furthermore himself surrenders to the king once in Jerusalem and a second time on the cross. Jesus explained his reasoning. He said that we are all children of G-d, and therefore to “love thy neighbor” as a result (as though a brother or sister). He prayed on the cross for peaceful treatment of those who put him there. So there is a religious basis for surrendering to the other side. The more extremely religious someone is, the more likely he is to follow this example.

This writer prefers to think of religious surrender being a mutual one, where all sides set down arms - because they are unnecessary - and simply greets one another as compassionate friends, as opposed to one side or the other surrendering.

Iranian media said the nuclear personnel in Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan all survived. While the United States may not have been intending for that to happen, that was very important. The facilities were fully evacuated. All of the Iranian people are perfectly fine. Iran responded with projectiles towards a U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq a day later, where absolutely all Americans also survived. Military on all sides are probably frightened but still living.

The Supreme Leader of Iran took international threats so seriously that he said he would select possible successors, according to the New York Times, which cited three Iranian sources. There wasn’t anything recently published in Iranian English language media that confirms or denies that. President Trump is not allowed under U.S. law (or the U.N. charter) to target foreign heads of state without prior congressional approval. Israel is not similarly constrained. But Israeli leadership said there are no plans to target the Supreme Leader, according to Newsmax and Ynet. So perhaps the Supreme Leader will remain in the position. That seems to be what’s currently implied in Iranian newspapers.

Iran believed there was a threat against the Supreme Leader from Washington. The Tehran Times explained that (quote in italics),

Evidence suggests that the primary goal of Israel and Washington in attacking Iran was "regime change." They likely assumed that the attacks would prompt the Iranian population, already struggling with economic and societal challenges, to rise up against the government and overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Americans and Israelis even presented the deposed Shah's son as an alternative, staging a press conference for him with international media to unveil his "day after" plans.

A future Iranian Supreme Leader might not be more peaceful. A new Syrian leader made peace with Israel and the United States recently. But the Iranian media and population are disillusioned with the other side, and might not choose a leader the same way. There’s no way to know how that process would develop.

Israel is a major non-NATO alliance for the United States. So the country’s military and intelligence units cannot be directed by the United States. Israel is not part of the NATO command and control structure, and consequently only takes action on its own initiative. The United States does not have a congressionally approved treaty to defend Israel - just to share intelligence and to train with Israelis. But the United States does have a ten year commitment to supply arms, according to information published on the Internet, that ends in 2028.

Israel published articles indicating they independently targeted Iranian Leadership.

Iran leadership was clearly hoping the President of the United States would prevent Israel. That clearly seems unfair to the Iranian side. President Trump did what Iran asked. He told Israel publicly prior to June 2025 not to target anyone. He became convinced by Israel that they were right after that time. And he announced the U.S. incursion into Iran to limit the nuclear program there.

This writer feels cognitive dissonance when encountering incitement. Incitement is uncomfortable to people who pattern “peace” every day. Muslims pattern “peace” in Arabic the same way this peace maker uniquely does in English, by greeting each other with “peace” throughout every day. This writer therefore understands how American attitudes and actions can seem outlandish - even unimaginable - to people in the Persian gulf, because he is patterned the same way as the population and governments there. Incited attitudes from the U.S. side seem unimaginable to many Muslims. On the other hand, the United States has tolerated tens of thousands of real lost lives in the Middle East in previous years and decades. So Muslim patterning does not mean Arabic speaking people won’t defend themselves. There are risks of confrontation and possibilities for peace from all sides.

There is a different tolerance for conflict between the U.S. and Persian sides. Americans feel comfortable with conflict in a way that Muslim countries don’t. Confrontations can seem more like natural behavior to people patterned with incitement. But the United States and NATO have a history of sincerely resolving differences as well. President Trump historically made peace with North Korea, and even became friends with the Supreme Leader of North Korea, with love letters. Their public peace developed after there was nearly an exchange of “fire and fury.” That possibility might exist for the Supreme Leader of Iran. There seemed from the U.S. President’s comments to reporters earlier this year to be a genuine commitment to that possibility with Iranian leadership at that time.

Congressional approval is necessary for President Trump to expand upon U.S. involvement in Iran. He had legal justifications for limited cross border incursions that a republican Supreme Court might readily accept because of Iranian rhetoric and Yemen military behavior. But there is currently no declaration of war approved by Congress, and there would have to be for a much larger conflict.

When a country declares war against the United States, the U.S. President has immediate authority by law to launch strikes and mobilize troops without congressional approval. He gains leeway to use the military to defend and even respond. So rhetoric from foreign leaders and news producers can be important. When such a declaration is made, President Trump only needs subsequent congressional approval for a much more sustained large-scale incursion after limited initial ones. And leading democrats so far have spoken out against that possibility. Words of foreign leaders and media matter a lot.

As mentioned at the start of this article, a truce was announced that for the moment is holding on all sides.

Prior to aforementioned events, IranIan leadership said in May 24, 2025 that, while they did not feel hopeful for a great attitude from the U.S. side, that they were cautiously giving nuclear negotiations one more chance. This writer hopes an agreement might still be achievable without further military confrontation.

U.S. President Donald Trump signaled readiness for improving relations at the start of his administration by saying that he wanted a basic agreement with Iran in place by the middle of May 2025. He publicly gave everyone four months to reach a deal. From his perspective, an agreement did not even close to materialize from the Iranian side within that timeframe. It looked to the United States like American lives were lost to Iranian proxies in Yemen, and Israeli lives were in danger from Iranian missals. Iran seemed to the United States to choose a confrontationally deterrent path. Iran’s recent statement that they may block the Straight of Hormuz and prevent 20% of the world’s oil shipments is real world example of rhetorical challenges the Trump administration has received from Iran that has implications for countries globally.

Iran perhaps wasn’t initially eagerly receptive to overtures for peace because of destructive events from the U.S. and Israeli side in Yemen and Gaza. Perhaps Iran tolerated a genuine confrontation in response to what it thought was merely very frightening military deterrence? That’s the way this writer analyzed news reports.

The United States may have thought there were sunken NATO vessels in the area of Iranian proxies called Houthi rebels. This writer doesn’t think any sunk based on the best intelligence he has. But he acknowledges that military deterrence can make it challenging to know for sure.

There were obvious indications that the U.S. really hoped for improving relations, and that sanctions relief was genuinely on the table for Iran. One was that sanctions were historically lifted on Syria on May 14, 2025 prior to the end of the timeline told to Iran. This writer believes passionately that the decision to lift sanctions on Syria was the right thing to do. The Syrian population that took up residency in Turkey couldn’t be a more sensitive, compassionate, wonderful people who have deserved much better than they have received for decades.

The decision to lift sanctions on their home country was a stunningly good one by the Trump administration. But security competitors such as Iran didn’t respond in hopes for ways, and enter into Abraham Accords, preferring deterrence instead. So the United States didn’t make the hoped for progress on regional peace at that time.

Iranian proxies clearly hoped and strategized instead to increase the cost of global oil supplies. That could increase the price for the entire population in NATO and even many non-NATO countries.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei brought up the U.S. and Israeli involvement in Yemen and Gaza to explain on May 15, 2025 that he did not believe in President Trump’s sincerity about peace. The U.S. alliance with Israel, he said, included arming Israel with very forceful weapons that have been used throughout the region. Even though Israel is obviously an independent actor from the United States—not even a member of NATO, Palestinian-Israeli exchanges earlier this year were portrayed in the Iranian media as too harmful to civilians for Iran to overlook. Israel has regularly been taking action against the government within the borders of Iran.

Prior to lifting sanctions on traditionally Iranian aligned-Syria, President Trump offered to enter into an Abraham Accord with Iran, and said that the U.S. and alliances would build for free and give away a beautiful brand new modern city to the Palestinians immediately. He was at that time and remains believed by this peace maker. He seemed genuinely interested in this possibility during interviews. He did not seem to be believed by the other side. He explained in multiple public appearances that Palestinians could occupy a vast number of newly built Trump-quality buildings in an Arabic speaking country. The location, he said, could be Gaza if the area became peaceful enough from all sides. And President Trump said if peace didn’t develop there, the U.S. would give away a fantastic city immediately anyway. He promised to work with alliances on financing to build virtually immediately in Jordan, Egypt or somewhere else agreeable without preconditions. We’re talking about millions of homes.

President Trump also publicly told the media for quite some time (such as in this Truth Social post on February 5, 2025) that, “I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East Celebration when it is signed and completed. God Bless the Middle East!” The media and public were prepped for the possibility of resolution. The media became very influential in the United States when Pete Heggseth became Secretary of Defense. So those public comments may have been a sincere expression of intent.

This writer believes that the nuclear agreement should be barely necessary because Islamic states are peaceful for religious reasons by charter, and the entire region is obviously advanced already. But optics matter, and an agreement is important giving the Trump administration an excuse to the American people for resolution with Iran. President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio perhaps used to hope that Iran would play along, and easily negotiate and conclude one.

Iran made positive comments about the possibility of an agreement but clearly did not agree to one by the time limit President Trump initially published upon taking office. Iran’s chief diplomat Araghchi told the Tehran Times in February 2025, “It is [easy] to reach practical assurances that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, provided that objective guarantees are also provided that… measures against Iran—including economic pressures … will be [alleviated].” But nothing was accomplished in that regard before the end of May 2025. Iran, for instance, could easily have signed an Abraham Accord immediately after Syrian sanctions were lifted and did not.

President Masoud Pezeshkian patterned patterned peace at the United Nations upon taking office in 2024. He won Iran’s election to replace President Ebrahim Raisi shortly after the former leader’s helicopter was destroyed accidentally (in the middle of his second term). President Pezeshkian is already encouraging NATO to have peaceful improving relations with Iran. (Former President Raisi’s steady leadership style and calming influence are already missed by more than just his Iranian constituency. He is remembered fondly by world leaders globally. And current President Pezeshkian is presenting himself even more peacefully.) President Pezeshkian started his presidency with the following statement about Iran playing a unifying peace making role in the region:

”As nations endowed with abundant resources and shared traditions rooted in peaceful Islamic teachings, we must unite and rely on the power of logic rather than the logic of power. By leveraging our normative influence, we can play a crucial role in the emerging post-polar global order by promoting peace, creating a calm environment conducive to sustainable development, fostering dialogue, and dispelling Islamophobia. Iran is prepared to play its fair share in this regard.”










The rest of this article is helpful historical context, that mostly explains U.S. - Iranian relations during former U.S. and Iranian administrations…

Iran doesn’t have a challenge deterring. Decades of patterning in NATO news ensured Iran’s credibility as a formidable adversary.

The United States started to improve relations with Iran until events in Israel surprised all sides in the United States. The Biden-Harris administration said they’re ready for a comprehensive peace deal - as shown in the image below. And former President Trump said nearly the same thing. He appeared on Fox News (on March 17, 2024) and said he wants Iran to sign the Abraham peace accord, too.

There’s an Israeli plan to rebuild Palestinian neighborhoods into a modern Gaza city that can be given to Palestinians under the control of Islamic countries friendly to all sides. Iran therefore can help resolve the matter easily simply by calling for all Palestinian political parties to be included in this or any other peace deal.

Sanctions relief isn’t as important to Iran as NATO governments seem to believe, because the U.S. didn’t use to seem to Iran to keep its word from U.S. administration to administration. And the United States has an unfortunate reputation with other countries in the region for taking accounts of ordinary people through sanctions during decades of interventions there. Iran also doesn’t need permission to trade because Iran trades freely with a majority of the world’s population already. Iran is becoming very successful without integrating the population with Europe and the United States yet. The country also prioritizes other values far before economic ones. So NATO shouldn’t expect to influence Iran with promises of financial gain. The Iranian government views itself as a protector of impoverished people throughout the Middle East and Asia. But new free trading opportunities and generosity from Europe and the United States are still symbolically important - and therefore an important way NATO and Iran can achieve improving relations. Many people in western countries believe sanctions relief is the right attitude for everyone to have towards a population that deserves the most opportunities possible and government that’s a genuinely potential partner in peace.

Europe doesn’t want more disgruntled immigration from the region, and prefers for people to have opportunities in all home countries instead. Europe is overwhelmed already.

(The Iranian government has benefitted a lot from an exclusionary attitude from NATO, because it forced the Iranian people to innovate independently. Iran has quietly/humbly advanced far further and faster than western governments seem to believe. Iran has advanced fast enough to be one of the most desirable alliances at the United Nations. NATO has underestimated the possible benefit to NATO of improving relations. NATO has also underestimated the benefit of encouraging competing countries such as Iran to rely upon western innovation. It’s still a tremendous missed opportunity.)

Iranians are deeply ethical and always generously help less fortunate states, sometimes including ones that aren’t giving the same treatment in return. Israel, Europe and the United States are all deterred by a country that would love to be able to openly help everyone.

There is significant economic progress in Iranian-U.S. relations in 2023. This writer understands the United States returned $6 billion to Iran that was held by the United States. There is a $10 billion sanctions waiver benefitting Iran in Iraq as well. And this writer understands that a neutral intermediary country aligned with Iran will continue to use all of these funds for the benefit of the Iranian population. If true, this was an exemplary and courageous decision for peace.

This was the right thing for President Biden to do for peace. The release of six Americans was created as a rationale. And they are safely home. This writer hopes this was the much needed breakthrough in U.S.A.-Iran relations. Further peaceful normalization is in the interest of the populations involved.

Iran knows how to deter better than most countries because Iran was forced to by NATO to deter when NATO incorrectly attributed public safety incidences to other countries that had no involvement in creating them. Iran had to look fierce and become that way to some extent to avoid foreign intervention. Iran became a completely credible competitor. But the truth is that Iran is peaceful. All countries have come to view Iran as formidable and unpredictable - and consequently desirable security alliance. But Iran has always made a phenomenal consistent effort for peace. The sensitive and compassionate side to the Iranian government and people is often visible in the government's communication strategy. Iran can’t resist revealing the integrity of everyone involved from time to time including in communication. Iran cares deeply about peace with ALL other countries.

Iran has strived for great relations globally for decades with diplomatic outreach throughout the region and beyond. Iran used government media appearances to successfully improve relations with rival Saudi Arabia with U.S. help, for instance, which brought peace and calm to Yemen recently. Iranian officials have also participated in perhaps a hundred peace talks regionally. For instance, Iran orchestrated a real and lasting peace between Iran's friendly neighbor Syria and their "rival" country Turkey. (This represented a tremendous diplomatic accomplishment for the entire region, because Iran and NATO were essentially negotiating peace with each other through intermediary countries.) Iran is well known to keep its word (even when other countries aren't as reliable). Iran also has a reputation at the United Nations for integrity. Therefore, the country is usually invited to peace talks by other countries in need of helpful diplomacy.

The Supreme Leader of Iran Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei created a peaceful burgeoning liberal democracy in his country. It's modeled after the ones in Europe and the United States. There is a parliamentary voting system very similar to the British one. Although he has final say, the democracy has become an excellent system that Iran uses to select the entire rest of the government. It gives the population the opportunity to choose all of their own public servants and policies. The democratic system has also taught the population how to integrate into and work in other democratic ones.

Although the Iranian and United States governments aren’t ready to form an alliance, the truth is that they easily could. They share the same values and have a similar desire for peace. The Iranian government repeatedly says that it cares about "peace, freedom and justice." These are precisely the same values the Biden-Harris administration has extolled in public presentations. And the Iranian government created the same peace, freedom and justice that's enjoyed throughout the United States. There is consequently a tremendous opportunity for mutual understanding and lasting peace between the great nations.

The Iranian government also fully supports minority rights, which are important to the Biden administration in evaluating U.S. - Iranian relations. Iran has more progressive minority rights than anywhere else in the region. Women wear whatever they want. And people of various ethnicities enjoy full and equal rights, and participate equally in industry and government. There was a Jewish member of congress, for instance. There is a burgeoning Jewish population in Tehran.

Islam is the official religion in Iran. The Iranian government therefore convinces the population there to participate in democracy by calling it "Islamic." (Otherwise they would not.) This raised eyebrows in Israel, which considers itself a Jewish democracy, but shouldn't because Islam is a religion named for "peace." The Iranian government encourages peaceful participation in democracy by describing it this way. (Some Iranians are also Zoroastrians, and consequently believe in “good words, good thoughts and good deeds,” which all reflect exemplary integrity.)

Most democratically elected governments these days describe democracy theologically. Iran is far from alone in this regard. The United States does the same thing in distinguishing church from state but welcoming each new leader with a hand on a Christian Bible anyway. There's even a Christian religious motto in the United States found equivalently in Islamic religious texts and governments. The Israeli government of course declares that it’s Jewish. The tradition of democracy being theological is therefore essentially the same in the United States, Israel and Iran (though the predominating religion varies between them).

President Obama understood that Iranians may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of September 2001, and was open to peace with all peaceful Islamic nations. The Obama-Biden administration's peace deal with Iran was called The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was agreed to by Iran. The peace agreement gave the Obama-Biden administration visibility into Iran's energy production. Iran promised to limit certain aspects of their behavior. President Obama lifted sanctions as a result. President Obama probably felt that Iran would quickly develop successful diplomatic relations with all other countries once given the opportunity. He probably expected this to include improving relations between Iran and Israel. But Iran didn't improve relations with Israel. And the arrangement was vehemently objected to by the Israeli government and population instead.

JCPOA probably would have been permanently successful if Israel had supported the arrangement. But it was only successful for a short time during the Obama-Biden years. Israel was able to undermine the deal during the subsequent Trump-Pence U.S. presidential administration. JCPOA was met with tremendous enthusiasm in Iran and the United States, when it was an active arrangement. People in both countries looked forward to the Iranian population participating openly and freely in the global economy. However, the deal eventually fell apart without Israel's support.

This is because the Trump-Pence administration only developed respect and appreciation for Muslim countries during their time in office. Initially they implemented a Muslim travel ban - without public explanation or an obvious reason to do so - that was only several years later replaced with a very sensitive and thoughtful approach to Islam and the region. The Trump administration ultimately demonstrated exemplary integrity and courage for peace in the Middle East. But President Trump didn’t make hoped for progress beyond the region with Iran.

The Trump-Pence administration had a different perspective on U.S. relations with Iran than the Obama-Biden administration had. They preferred the Jewish-Israeli perspective, because the United States was (and remains) fully persuaded by Iran's deterrence. The U.S. government hoped that Iran might make everyone feel safe and sign an improved peace deal with Israel. The Trump-Pence administration therefore worked with Israel to renegotiate JCPOA with Iran. Both the United States and Iran were tolerating public safety incidences that they were incorrectly attributing to the other. The Trump-Biden government abruptly halted U.S. participation in JCPOA in response to innocent public safety incidences, and as a negotiating tactic, hoping Iran, the United States and Israel would all achieve a public peace with one another. But Iran felt that the prior negotiations should remain sacrosanct, and that any subsequent negotiations be held under an additional agreement. Iran wanted the United States to honor JCPOA regardless of its continued deterrent relationship towards Israel.

Iran stayed entirely true to their word and fully respected JCPOA. Iran has a perfect record of reliability in peace negotiations and deals. The Iranian government keeps its word even when other countries don't do the same. But the United States didn't keep its word to Iran. Iran expressed disdain for the entire matter, and started refusing to even interact with the Trump-Pence administration (as far as the public is aware). The Trump-Pence administration's efforts to create additional terms for the peace agreement were therefore unsuccessful. Iran wouldn't hear them out, and simply insisted that the United States stay true to its prior commitments. Now the Biden-Harris administration is considering honoring the original commitment, and returning the United States to the peace treaty once again.

President Joe Biden was Vice President when the original JCPOA agreement was reached. Now that he's President, he seemed initially inclined to return his own peace deal. The Biden-Harris administration hasn’t seemed to feel that is currently the right thing to do. But the administration should. To make the deal last longer, U.S. Congressionals support should be sought this time, which would make a deal much more durable, because it won't be subject to renegotiation by each subsequent presidential administration. (This writer believes U.S. media would provide bi-partisan support for better U.S. - Iran relations.) Presidential and congressional support would certainly be very welcomed by the Iranian government. However, Israel continues to have significant influence. Jewish Americans who support Israel have wealthy government lobbying organizations. Jews also directly participate in the U.S. government. Israel might therefore be able to interfere with the deal again if there isn't a simultaneous improvement in Iranian - Israeli relations.

Iran may secure U.S. Presidential and majority U.S. congressional support for sanctions relief in coming years. Countries that are generous towards one another are far more successful than ones that are not. And both the U.S. and Iranian governments understand that positive attitudes are more than just the right thing to do. They're in the interest of the populations of both countries.

This writer believes it's time for the United States to stop attributing internals issues to countries that have nothing to do with them. The Iranian community has always been at peace within the United States. The United States in turn hopes Iran will soften its stance in the region and rhetoric towards Israel, and make the Abraham Declaration. Iran and Israel are not patterning enough "peace" and "love" to each other often enough yet - something that could start happening more and more. Palestinians and Jews are on the verge of a lasting peace agreement if everyone wants one. It's a potentially very exciting time in their diplomacy as a result. This writer wishes Iran would take credit for their improving relations by hosting successful peace talks in Tehran. That would create tremendous credibility for Iran globally.)

The Palestinian people care deeply about peace and want integration with all other populations including within Israel. They want to be around more great people like themselves. Palestinians requested that all other countries sign the same Abraham declaration with them. This can be done at any time with a simple press release.

The United States media used to deter Americans from improving relations with Iran, and the Iranian government intentionally played along. Consequently, the extraordinary compassion and exemplary ethics of Iranian leaders and people aren’t understood among NATO states. The Iranian government is far more ethical than is broadly believed in the west. Iran has helped Israel and NATO. And there is some thawing in relations. But Iran deserves much more rapidly improving relations with all countries at the United Nations as a result.

Islam was named for “peace." (“Slam” is “peace” and “Islam” literally implies mutual “surrender.” It’s possibly the most peaceful religion on earth.) Peace is deeply desired by the Iranian government and people. Any opportunity for peace between all countries should be more than just joyously welcomed. Let's celebrate and cherish peace globally.