Despite claims of a cease-fire between Israel and Iran after nearly two weeks of rocket barrages between the two nations, experts in Middle Eastern and international relations across the Five Colleges noted the challenges ahead of ensuring a quick solution to the conflict, with a protracted period of fighting remaining likely.

President Donald Trump announced a cease-fire between Iran and Israel on Monday night, facilitated by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani and a direct call by the president to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the news agency Reuters. The announcement came hours after Iran attacked a U.S. military base in Qatar that resulted in no casualties in retaliation for the American bombing of its nuclear sites.

But that cease-fire appeared to be violated by both sides almost immediately, with Iran and Israel trading a new exchange of attacks. Trump acknowledged the violations on both sides Tuesday, but maintained that the cease-fire remains “in effect.”

Steven Heydemann, a professor of Middle East studies at Smith College, told the Daily Hampshire Gazette that attacks could continue between the two sides, albeit at a lower level, comparing it to Israel’s targeting of Islamic militant group Hezbollah inside Lebanon.

“I suspect that Israel will continue to engage inside Iran any time it sees any sort of movement that it construes as a threat,” Heydemann said. “Any time that it becomes clear to the Israelis that the Iranians are trying to rebuild a [nuclear] facility or that they’re trying to move critical equipment or personnel, I strongly suspect Israel would view that as requiring some sort of action. But that would be relatively low-level, I would imagine.”

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday following the cease-fire announcement, Trump said his administration was not interested in “regime change” in Iran.

But David Mednicoff, an associate professor of Middle Eastern studies and public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, cautioned that Trump is known for doing a sudden about-face when it comes to policy.

“It is something of a fool’s game to predict what Donald Trump will do on any policy issue, whatever he does or doesn’t say on his social media,” Mednicoff said. “This is because the president tends to act on impulse, seems to believe that being unpredictable helps him achieve his goals, has no problem with lying, and cares little about well-settled American policy precedents or the knowledge of experts.”

Still, Mednicoff said, the idea of a brokered peace in the region is possible.

“A comprehensive regional peace that includes a less menacing Iran and a Palestinian autonomous state is not inconceivable, and would be a great achievement for President Trump,” he said. “But he would have to disregard Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policy impulses and ongoing tendency to wage war to hold onto political control in order to work toward this.”

Heydemann also said Trump had his own political motivations for maintaining peace between the two sides. The president had campaigned on a platform of no further involvement within the Middle East, and further attacks beyond the U.S. bombing of several Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday could cause them to turn on Trump should he get the U.S. further involved in conflict there.

“Trump has been very, very diligent in trying to thread the needle between the use of force against Iran and mitigating the concerns of an isolationist component of his base,” Heydemann said. “Maybe with ‘one and done,’ he succeeds. But if this becomes more, I think we will find he may lose that part of his base.”

Michael Klare, a Five College professor emeritus of peace and world security studies, expressed doubts that U.S. involvement with Iran’s nuclear capabilities was done.

“What President Trump and the Secretary of Defense [Pete Hegseth] have said is that this is a one-off and we’ve solved the problem of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons and that’s the end of it. Those statements are completely inaccurate,” Klare said. “Iran retains the capability to produce nuclear materials.”

Klare also noted that other Iran-backed Islamist groups, such as the Houthis in Yemen, could resume attacks in the region as a result of the conflict.

“Those would also contribute to chaos in the area, that could lead to more retaliation by the U.S., or by Israel,” Klare said. “So you have the risk of a pattern of one attack breeding another attack, breeding more attacks without end.”

Experts also noted that a key factor in ensuring peace in the region was the role of several gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those states had been on the path to normalizing relations with Israel and bridging out to Iran over the past several years, but the beginning of the 2023 war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza had put a damper on those efforts.

Heydemann said the U.S. bombing of Iran, along with the retaliatory strike by Iran in Qatar, could further complicate such plans.

“The U.S. involvement has really shredded that significant investment that Arab countries made in regional diplomacy and building a regional security architecture,” Heydemann said. “You have to imagine that from the perspective of the Arab states bordering Iran, these developments are seen as deeply, deeply destabilizing.”

Klare said that from the Iranian point of view, it was important to keep the surrounding Arab states neutral, noting that Iran notified Qatar of its attack in advance so as to minimize damage.

“Their intent was to make clear they don’t have an argument at this point with the Qataris, just with the Americans,” Klare said. “When negotiations resume, they’ll want the Gulf states to not be hostile, to at least be neutral.”

Alexander MacDougall can be reached at amacdougall@gazettenet.com.