By Desmond Nleya, Daily Times Reporter
Friday the 13th of June gave different meanings to different people around the world. It was a day after Air India had crushed killing more than 200 people and yet Friday the 13th captured the attention of the whole world.
For a villager in Harare, Zimbabwe, it was one of the many rumors of war in faraway lands, for the citizen in Washington, it was perhaps the start of WW3, for a politician In Tel Aviv, it was the beginning of stopping the imminent WW3. And yet for the people of Tehran it was an unjustified provocation worth a response.
And so the missiles were sent in Tehran killing the top echelon of the Iranian Army in a surprise attack with Iran also sending missiles in Israel in retaliation starting a back-and-forth attack by the two nations.
For a number of days, social media was awash with real time images and updates of war as if it was a football match.
The world was divided into two: Its either you were for Iran or for Israel.
Others seemed to be enjoying it, because for them it was one of those wars but behind those pictures and videos were human beings, children, women, innocent people being sacrificed and being recorded as part of the statistics of the war
After ten days, USA entered the war by attacking Iran and the world held its breath as this was described as the final straw for a fully fletched world war. Iran retaliated by attacking US bases in the region and red travel alerts were issued globally with most Middle East air spaces closed, flights cancelled.
The World War 3 was finally here.
Fortunately, and to the relief of many, on the 24th of June after 12 days of bloodbath, news of ceasefire came.
But what happened?
For Israel, destroying Iranian infrastructure represented a symbolic reversal of humiliation. The nation, still recovering from repeated rocket barrages and drone infiltrations, found renewed confidence in its ability to strike deep into enemy territory with precision. National pride, bruised by years of indirect conflict, has been significantly restored.
Yet all this came at high price, loss of lives and injured civilians, destroyed infrastructure and to some extent battered image of having to see war rubbles in Tel Aviv for the very first time in decades.
For Iran, the blows were not just physical but personal. Major General Mohammad Bagheri—the Chief of Staff, Gholam Ali Rashid, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Ali Shadmani, and other top IRGC and air force commanders were killed in rapid succession. Their loss left Iran reeling, disrupting military cohesion and compromising its nuclear weapons command infrastructure. Though deeply wounded, Iran’s IRGC has rallied, potentially centralizing even more power.
But who is the winner?
Isreal: Claims it achieved its military objectives, reasserted deterrence, and repaired wounded national pride.
Iran: While severely damaged and military leadership demolished; infrastructure crippled; functional humiliation endured it kept its agenda intact as there was no regime change.
For USA: Mixed. Strategically, the U.S.—under President Trump—reaped diplomatic benefits. The ceasefire serves as a political triumph for Trump’s “peace through strength” narrative. Yet, uncertainty looms—if the ceasefire unravels, it could tarnish his legacy Trump’s legacy: The ceasefire is a double-edged sword. It’s being portrayed as a diplomatic coup, reinforcing his leadership credentials. But the fragile nature of the truce leaves his reputation hanging on whether this calm holds .
Will the ceasefire hold?
For now, the ceasefire is precarious. Iran insists its halt is conditional upon continued Israeli restraint. The truce is viewed by many as tactical, not strategic—intended to buy time, regroup, and rearm. With missiles still flying in city outskirts and hardliners calling for revenge, expectations of an extended calm remain low. Qatar, siding with the USA, brokered the deal, but regional players like Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis are not party to it and could reignite hostilities.
What does this mean on the Geo-political arena?
• USA & Qatar: The U.S.–Qatar axis, led by diplomatic back-channeling, momentarily restored regional U.S. influence—showing Washington can still act decisively. Qatar further elevated its role as a mediator and pro USA powerbroker .
• China: Beijing voiced support for a diplomatic ceasefire, warning against escalation—which risked harming its oil trade linkages through the Strait of Hormuz. While it condemned Israel and the U.S., China avoided direct intervention, signaling a cautious balancing act.
• Russia: Moscow condemned the strikes as “unprovoked aggression” and offered rhetorical—but not military—support to Iran. Though Russia may capitalize on diplomatic openings, its actual influence hinges on Tehran’s willingness to accept Russian mediation.
Again, Who’s the winner? Who’s the loser?
Surely there is no true “winner” in a war—civilians on both sides endured pain and loss. The loser remains the villager and not the politician. The losers are the poor villagers, soldiers women and children whose lives are cut short by wars started by the rich and powerful while in air-conditioned offices in Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Daily Times’ editorial stance.
