TEHRAN - A university professor examines Israel’s insatiable thirst for wars in the Middle East and gives reasons why Iran is insisting on a durable peace deal rather than accepting a ceasefire agreement in the war that Israel and the U.S. have launched against it.

Reza Bakhtiyari from the Faculty of Law and Political Science at Mazandaran University says repeated attacks against the Hamas and Hezbollah resistance movements show that Israel does not honor ceasefire agreements.

Israel and the U.S. launched a 12-day war against Iran in June 2025. Nine months later, in full coordination with the Trump administration, Israel again attacked Iran on Feb. 28. Though a Pakistan-mediated two-week ceasefire is holding between Iran and the U.S. and one round of talks has been held between the two sides in Islamabad and efforts are underway to restart the talks and even extend the ceasefire, Israel is impatient to resume its aerial raids on Iran. 

In a 13-minute address on April 12, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli public that the war against Iran “is not yet over”.  On April 14, Israel’s Mossad chief David Barnea also said “our mission has yet to be completed.”

In its 10-point proposal to the U.S. prior to the Islamabad talks, Iran insisted on a “full cessation of the war”. 

Bakhtiyari says Iran has adopted a smart policy in rejecting long-term ceasefire proposals and is insisting on “sustainable peace agreement”.

The following is an excerpt of his analysis posted on the IRNA Persian service:

The Zionist regime’s military aggression against Iran in June 2025 and the current one clearly prove that Tel Aviv has intensified its "hostility" with Iran. 

The ongoing military aggression of this regime, carried out with the participation of the United States, has inflicted severe damages on Iran, yet Iran has not accepted various proposals for a "long-term ceasefire agreement" and has instead emphasized a permanent peace agreement.

The question is why Iran has not accepted proposals for a long-term ceasefire and instead insists on a guaranteed and sustainable peace agreement. 

Given Israel's behavioral pattern that is based on "preemptive security approach," this regime shows no commitment to a long-term ceasefire agreement and will resort to military action against Iran again if necessary.

As some observers point out, military aggression against Iran is influenced more by the desires and intentions of the Zionist regime than by United States. In fact, Zionist lobbies have played a significant role in provoking Washington into war with Iran.

The perceptions of strategists and political elites in Israel are framed in such a way that Iran, unlike Arab countries that have waged war against this regime in past decades, possesses powerful material and spiritual resources to threaten this regime.

For this reason, over the past few decades, especially in the last two decades, the strategic focus of the Zionist regime has been on comprehensive confrontation with Iran, including military confrontation. In this context, it seems that Tel Aviv pursues several goals through this war: first, to eliminate Iran's military and economic power resources for at least a medium-term period; second, to reduce Iran's strategic depth and weaken the so-called "resistance crescent"; third, to create a political rift aimed at isolating Iran regionally, especially among Arab nations; fourth, to advance and complete the Israeli-Arab alliance project against Iran by intensifying and expanding the geographical scope of the war.

The policies of the Zionist regime in recent years reflect the reality that the survival of Israel, and specifically Netanyahu's government, is closely linked to "maintaining and continuing insecurity" in the Middle East.

It appears that Hamas's October 7 operation against Israel, similar to the September 11 incident that created opportunities for the U.S., provided Netanyahu with the necessary pretext to advance regional objectives, particularly to realize the doctrine of "severing the head of the octopus", meaning Iran. It has now become clear that Netanyahu's insistence on his lie that Iran colluded with Hamas (in the October 7 attack) is essentially aimed at implementing this doctrine.

Initially, it seemed that the "regime change" policy could help Tel Aviv achieve its objectives in line with its doctrine. However, Iran's resilience and its effective military response, along with popular support for the ruling system, made it clear to the Israeli regime that, under current conditions, regime change is not feasible, though this option has not been completely set aside from the agenda. Therefore, the elites in Israel have decided to focus on the collapse of the regime and to intensify attacks on the country’s infrastructure, aiming to turn Iran, if possible, into a "failed state". Thus, the policy of escalating war alongside preventing the realization of peace and diplomacy has become a priority for Israel.

The behavioral pattern of Netanyahu and his security cabinet in recent developments in the Middle East, especially regarding the Axis of Resistance and the June 2025 war against Iran, indicates that a long-term ceasefire agreement would only create a military breathing space for this regime and provide an opportunity to rebuild its military capabilities for further aggression.

This policy aligns with Israel's so-called "mowing the grass" strategy, which is based on periodic "preemptive" military attacks to eliminate enemies seeking to regain their power. The repeated violations of ceasefire agreements by this regime with Hamas and Hezbollah of Lebanon confirm this reality. Netanyahu's statements that "Israel will live by the sword forever" can serve as a basis for Iran's distrust of this warmongering regime.

For this reason, decision-makers in Iran emphasize that they will never accept any long-term ceasefire agreement and will only accept a sustainable and guaranteed peace agreement. Even Trump's repeated threats against Iran have not created any doubts regarding this decision. Therefore, it seems that despite the continuation of war and its extensive damages, adopting this policy under current circumstances may be rational.

Given the anarchic international system, if hostilities and geopolitical confrontations between the two sides continue, even the possibility of violating a sustainable peace agreement cannot be ruled out.