Editor's note: Adriel Kasonta, a special commentator for CGTN, is a London-based foreign affairs analyst and commentator. He is the founder of AK Consultancy and former chairman of the International Affairs Committee at Bow Group, the oldest conservative think tank in the UK. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

When US President Donald Trump abruptly withdrew his threat to destroy Iran's "whole civilization" and instead announced a two-week conditional ceasefire on Tuesday, markets breathed a sigh of relief.

Brent crude retreated sharply from crisis highs, tanker insurers eased premiums and investors rushed to unwind bets on a prolonged Middle East war. For a brief moment, it appeared the worst had been avoided.

Then Israeli warplanes struck Lebanon. Within hours of the truce announcement, Israel launched its heaviest bombardment of Lebanon in months, hitting more than 100 targets and making clear that whatever understanding had been reached with Tehran did not extend to Hezbollah. Iran protested that the ceasefire was meant to cover all Iranian-aligned fronts. Israel flatly disagreed.

The result is an uncomfortable truth: This is not peace. It is not even a full ceasefire. 

It is, at best, a limited pause in one theatre of a wider regional conflict. The real question now confronting diplomats and investors alike is whether this truce marks the beginning of de-escalation, or merely the interval before a more dangerous second act.

What each side wants

The ceasefire's fragility stems from the fact that Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran remain fundamentally misaligned.

For the United States, Trump's objectives are immediate and tactical: stabilize oil markets, halt attacks on US assets and secure a diplomatic outcome that can be presented domestically as a strategic success. The White House portrays the ceasefire as proof that coercive pressure has worked.

Israel's aims are broader. Its strategic objective remains the long-term degradation of Iran's military capabilities, proxy network and nuclear infrastructure. A temporary pause in direct US-Iran hostilities means little if Tehran's regional deterrent architecture survives intact.

Iran, meanwhile, seeks political government survival, domestic legitimacy, sanctions relief and the preservation of deterrence. It cannot afford to appear cowed into submission, particularly after presenting itself domestically as having resisted Western pressure.

All three support a pause. They do so for entirely different reasons.

That divergence explains why the truce resolves almost nothing. Washington gets short-term de-escalation and breathing room in energy markets. Israel preserves operational freedom against Hezbollah while avoiding direct confrontation with Iran for now. Tehran gains evidence that escalation still imposes costs on its adversaries and that Washington remains eager to avoid a wider war.

Yet none of the underlying disputes have been addressed. There is no agreement on Iran's missile program. No settlement on its nuclear activity. No consensus on the future of Hezbollah or Tehran's wider proxy network. Even the scope of the ceasefire itself appears disputed.

That matters because ceasefires rarely fail due to technical violations alone. They fail when the political contradictions beneath them remain unresolved.

Skepticism over the sustainability of the ceasefire is warranted as the truce depends on assumptions that may prove untenable: That Iran can restrain its proxies; that Israel will accept limits on military action if it perceives deception; and that Trump will remain invested in diplomacy if talks drag on. Each assumption is questionable.

Iran's deterrence strategy relies heavily on its regional allies. Asking Tehran to accept attacks on Hezbollah while observing restraint elsewhere places obvious strain on the arrangement. Israel, for its part, has shown little appetite for strategic patience where it believes Iranian assets are concerned. And Trump's record suggests limited tolerance for protracted negotiations that fail to yield visible wins.

Two weeks are not a peace process. It is a countdown.

Is a durable settlement possible?

Possible, yes. Likely, far less so. Any lasting agreement would require politically painful concessions from all sides. Washington would need to offer sanctions relief or security guarantees. Iran would need to accept meaningful constraints on military or nuclear capabilities. Israel would need confidence that any deal genuinely curbs Iran's regional power rather than simply postponing confrontation.

That is a high bar. Still, incentives for restraint exist. The Trump administration does not want a prolonged conflict driving up fuel prices and dominating headlines. Iran's economy remains fragile. Israel understands that permanent regional war carries steep military and economic costs.

Necessity may sustain diplomacy longer than trust ever could. For markets, the ceasefire reduces immediate tail risk but leaves the geopolitical premium firmly intact. Iran has demonstrated its ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Israel has demonstrated its willingness to continue military operations even amid active diplomacy. Investors will price both realities into regional risk calculations for months to come.

Brent may have fallen, but absent broader de-escalation, a return to pre-crisis pricing looks unlikely. As long as the Gulf remains vulnerable and Lebanon remains under fire, energy markets will continue to trade with one eye on the battlefield.

The bottom line

This ceasefire is significant enough to matter, but too fragile to celebrate. It reflects not reconciliation, but exhaustion and tactical necessity. It may delay a wider war, lower temperatures temporarily and may even create diplomatic space. But unless the deeper strategic contradictions are resolved, this is less the end of a conflict than a pause between rounds.

For now, some missiles may be silent. The logic of war is not.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)