India, June 25 -- Twelve days after Israel launched an attack on Iran's top military command and nuclear and ballistic missile sites, the two countries tentatively agreed to a US-backed ceasefire that may yet unravel. The US strike on Iran's three nuclear sites and US President Donald Trump's deliberate ambiguity around Washington's objectives vis-a-vis Iran - whether it wanted to end Iran's nuclear programme or force a regime change in Tehran - restricted Iran's choices. But by launching missiles into Israel, Iran signalled its readiness for a war of attrition while keeping open the option of a diplomatic off-ramp. Iran's ruling elite now faces a reckoning over whether they should abandon their anti-American geopolitical project in favour of defending 'Iranzamin', the historical nation of Iran. The Islamist hardliners, who have dominated the security apparatus and consolidated political power by claiming security legitimacy, and the reformist liberals, who have sought to normalise Tehran's international relations, including with the West, will struggle to reconcile their visions of the future. Many analysts have argued that the last time Iran fought such an existential war was in the 1980s with Iraq. Saddam Hussein, with the support of most of Iraq's neighbours and both the Cold War superpowers, the US and the erstwhile USSR, had invaded the newly established Islamic Republic. Iran fought the eight-year war with virtually no allies except Syria. When Ayatollah Khomeini accepted the UN resolution on a ceasefire, calling it more deadly than "drinking from a poisoned chalice", he gave up the goal of the "export of (Islamic) revolution" to preserve the new republic. Subsequently, Khomeini established the new doctrine that the system's survival was a supreme value, and above any religious or ideological concern. Amid confrontation with the US, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which played a dominant role in the Iran-Iraq war, was put in charge of a deterrence strategy based on cultivating a network of non-State allies (Hezbollah in Lebanon, for instance) and a robust missile industry and a nuclear programme. Hardliners and reformists differed on the scale and purpose of Iran's nuclear programme. The former saw it as crucial to maintain a distance from the West. In contrast, the reformists have used it as leverage to draw the West, especially the US, into serious negotiations aimed at normalising diplomatic relations. Following Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018 and Israel's covert campaign of sabotage of nuclear facilities and scientists, Tehran incrementally scaled up nuclear activity, primarily to gain negotiation leverage. Still, it didn't cross the nuclear threshold, mainly fearing military attack by the US and/or Israel. Also, it has been reluctant to embrace the fate of North Korea, isolated from the international community and delinked from the global economy. That would have extracted a massive social cost and put unsustainable pressure on the domestic polity. Hassan Rouhani, during his 2013 presidential campaign, had successfully rallied the Iranian masses when he famously declared that the "centrifuges should spin, but that people's lives should run too," and reached a nuclear agreement, from which the Trump Administration withdrew in 2018. Israel's targeting of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, followed by US strikes on nuclear sites, have left Iran with stark choices. Tehran's defensive doctrine has been about avoiding a full-blown war with the US. Any serious Iranian attack on the US bases or attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz would have invited a forceful response from Washington. Further, Iran was keen to avoid damaging its ties with Gulf neighbours, who have tried to distance themselves from the US and Israeli aggression. However, a lack of response to the most flagrant attack by the US ran counter to the declared Iranian strategy of "threat against threat, aggression against aggression". Moreover, Tehran responded positively to a US-backed ceasefire with Qatar acting as an intermediary, just hours after its largely symbolic strikes aimed at America's Al Udied base in Qatar. While the extent of damage sustained by Iran's nuclear sites remains unclear and the whereabouts of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium that Tehran claims to have moved to safety in anticipation of strikes are unknown, Iranians will have to debate the future of their nuclear programme. Iran's nuclear capability lies in its broad knowledge base, including the expertise to build advanced centrifuges. Therefore, even the destruction of physical infrastructure does not guarantee the end of Iran's nuclear programme. Tehran's reformist-led government has correctly portrayed the attack on its nuclear installations as a direct threat to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and highlighted the failure of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to condemn the strikes. Such framing underscored Tehran's effort to mobilise diplomatic support at the international level. Foreign minister Abbas Araghchi's diplomatic outreach with Iran's neighbours during a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul and then with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, created diplomatic momentum towards a ceasefire. Iran's hardliner-dominated Parliament is considering a Bill to end cooperation with the IAEA and acting on Iran's right to withdraw from the NPT as a legal response to the US attacks. To begin the withdrawal process, Iran must submit notice to the other parties to the treaty and the UN Security Council three months in advance, which will then seek to influence the withdrawing party. Iran may utilise this as the remaining leverage for diplomacy with the West, especially if Russia and China take an active role. The hardliners in the security establishment look poised to question the utility of diplomacy with Washington and may brace for a lasting confrontation with Israel. Finally, the future will depend on whether the current detente holds. A lasting ceasefire may provide elbow room for diplomacy, and ensure peace and stability in the region....