Riyadh | B

The U.S.–Israeli war on Iran enters its 59th day, moving into a more complex phase where the battlefield intersects with political calculations, and the “declaration of victory” shifts from a closing moment… into a strategic dilemma.

Overview

U.S. intelligence agencies have begun assessing potential Iranian responses in the event that President Donald Trump declares a “unilateral victory,” reflecting Washington’s awareness of the sensitivity of the moment and the risks of turning the end of the war into a politically driven decision.

Meanwhile, Israel has revealed new context behind the war. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated that Tehran had intended to move its nuclear program deep underground, making it immune to any U.S. or Israeli strikes—prompting, according to this account, an early decision to engage militarily.

Sa’ar also noted that regime change in Iran was not a direct objective of the war, despite earlier statements suggesting otherwise, while affirming that such an option would remain on the table if circumstances allowed.

On another front, the White House confirmed that negotiations with Iran are ongoing, stressing that the Trump administration will not rush into a “bad deal,” and that any agreement must prioritize U.S. national security.

Available indicators suggest that Washington remains dissatisfied with Iran’s latest proposal, particularly given the lack of clarity on uranium enrichment and sensitive stockpiles—making any easing of pressure, such as lifting the naval blockade or reopening the Strait, a costly concession in negotiations.

BETH Analysis

The current scene is not about “who has won”…
but about who holds the authority to declare victory.

Washington understands that a premature declaration could trigger an unpredictable Iranian response,
while Tehran recognizes that a declared U.S. victory could be imposed as a political reality.

In the background, Israel operates under a different logic:
the war was not fought to topple the regime… but to prevent a more dangerous strategic moment—the fortification of the nuclear program.

This creates a complex triangle:

• United States: seeking an agreement that preserves the image of victory
• Iran: refusing to emerge as a clear loser
• Israel: aiming to eliminate a long-term threat

Conclusion

The war is approaching a decisive moment…
but resolution is no longer purely military.

The question is no longer:
Will the war end?

But:
How will its ending be written… and who will control its narrative?  

Intersecting Tracks

U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his warnings to Iran to accelerate reaching an agreement to end the war, while Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed that his government continues its efforts to help bridge differences between Washington and Tehran.

Sharif noted that a round of direct talks held on April 11 in Islamabad included a “marathon session” that contributed to progress on a ceasefire, which remains in place so far.

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stressed that Washington has achieved “significant successes” in Iran, while confirming continued monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear program, emphasizing that the primary objective remains preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

From the European side, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that any peace agreement must address Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles, stressing the need to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz as a key condition for sustainable stability.

She also warned of the war’s impact on the European economy, noting that energy import costs have increased by approximately $27 billion, reflecting the widening impact of the conflict beyond the region.

BETH Analysis

The situation is no longer a bilateral one between Washington and Tehran,
but has evolved into multiple intersecting tracks:

Pakistan: a channel of communication and mediation
United States: military pressure + conditional negotiations
Europe: integrated economic and security conditions

A new reality is taking shape:

The war is being managed politically as much as it is on the battlefield.

Notably, all parties implicitly agree on “ending the war,”
but differ on:

the shape of the ending… and the substance of the agreement.

Conclusion

The ceasefire is holding… but remains fragile
Negotiations continue… but remain incomplete

Pressure Toward Surrender

Trump: Iran’s economy is collapsing… their situation is critical, and they have no option but surrender

BETH Analysis
The statement is a pressure tool to set the ceiling for negotiations and shape a preemptive narrative of the outcome.
Washington is pushing for an agreement on its own terms while testing Tehran’s ability to endure.

The message is clear:
Raise the cost… until the concession comes.

BETH (بث B) – All rights reserved