Jeremy Bowen: Iran-US Ceasefire Offers Temporary Relief for Civilians but Is Unlikely to Last Long
Image source: Getty Images
On the same day, Donald Trump declared he would “destroy Iranian civilization today,” yet hours later Tehran’s ten-point plan was described as “useful” for upcoming talks in Pakistan.
First, the ceasefire provides temporary relief for civilians across the Middle East who have been caught in conflict since February 28, when the US and Israel initiated military action against Iran.
However, this does not extend to the people of Lebanon. Israel has excluded Lebanon from the ceasefire agreement and has continued to carry out intense and destructive airstrikes there.
Elsewhere, the relief may also be short-lived. Both Iran and the US have reasons to end the war, yet their positions remain deeply divergent. With mutual distrust prevailing, only two weeks remain to reach any accord.
US Vice President J.D. Vance described the agreement as a “weak truce.” That term indeed seems fitting.
Both Sides Claim Victory in the Conflict
Although both sides claim victory, these assertions seem less compelling compared to the realities on the ground.
Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared the United States had achieved a “historic and overwhelming” victory in the war.
“The world’s foremost sponsors of terror have proven utterly incapable of defending themselves, their people, and their own territory,” he said.
<
Tehran responded just as forcefully, with its government also claiming outright victory.
Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref declared on social media, “The world is embracing a new center of power, and the era of Iran has begun.”
Image source: AFP via Getty Images
Supporters of Trump argue that after causing irreversible destruction, Iran was forced to come to the negotiating table with the US and Israel.
According to the president’s supporters, his intense statements played a decisive role. Some threats could have even been categorized as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Iranians maintain that their long-standing resistance, ballistic missile and drone attack capabilities, as well as control over the Strait of Hormuz, forced the US to negotiate based on Tehran’s previously presented ten-point plan.
However, the US finds some points difficult to accept, including recognition of Iranian military control over the Strait of Hormuz, reparations demands, removal of economic sanctions, and release of frozen assets.
As both parties head to Islamabad for talks, it remains unclear whether Pakistan can effectively mediate a long-term resolution, but the conflict’s outcome will certainly reshape the Middle East significantly.
After ordering attacks on Iran, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu predicted a regime change in Iran, which has not materialized. Nevertheless, the US president has described the deaths of senior Iranian leaders as the dawn of a new regime.
Opponents based in countries hoping for a regime change will not find comfort in how the war is concluding.
The United States and Israel appear to have reversed course and are now approaching the Iranian government as full partners in negotiations. This shift gives Iran an opportunity to strengthen its position, contrary to just weeks ago when Trump demanded their unconditional surrender.
It is uncertain how much the upcoming Islamabad talks will differ from those held in Geneva. The Geneva talks were progressing on a new nuclear agreement, including discussions about Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, potentially usable for nuclear weapons.
Another key topic on the Islamabad agenda will be the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a strategic asset for Iran. Should hostilities resume, Iran has demonstrated the capability to easily close this vital waterway, potentially causing severe damage to the global economy.
Before February 28, international vessels freely passed through this waterway.
Under the current ceasefire, Iran will coordinate with its military to authorize vessels’ passage through the Strait. Iran may seek to maintain this arrangement long-term and possibly levy transit fees akin to those collected for the Suez Canal.
The Other Side
Israel was notably absent from diplomatic efforts to establish the ceasefire.
Prime Minister Netanyahu sought to further damage Iran. His political rivals, including opposition leader Yair Lapid, have accused him of weakening Israel’s security during this election year. Attacking Iran may not yield strategic gains for Israel and has raised concerns among many.
China has played a role in brokering the ceasefire, which will likely increase its influence in the Islamabad talks and strengthen its position in the Middle East.
Trump’s rhetoric has also had repercussions, especially negatively impacting relations with NATO partners. His disparaging remarks toward Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and insults directed at the British Royal Navy are unlikely to be forgotten by British leaders.
While Gulf Arab states will maintain contact with the US, they will likely reassess their security arrangements.
Lastly, the US president’s inflammatory language and threats of devastating attacks on civilization have raised serious questions worldwide regarding Trump’s ethics and regard for international law.
