Following over a month of escalating hostilities, Washington and Tehran agreed to a Pakistan-brokered, two-week ceasefire on April 8. This pause in the conflict presents a major opportunity to re-establish diplomatic channels between the two governments, enabling the possibility of ever reaching a bilateral agreement beneficial to both sides. Although U.S. President Donald Trump claims the ceasefire is currently in effect, the actual trajectory of the conflict seems to differ from the reality presented by Washington. As both nations continue to proclaim the truce as a strategic victory for their domestic audiences and the international community, the physical implementation of the ceasefire and the probability of reaching a lasting agreement leave much to be desired.
While the ceasefire signals the beginning of de-escalatory measures, it stands instark contrast to Trump’s recent ultimatum, where he, in his words, threatened Tehran with unprecedented destruction that would decisively lead to the extinguishing of an entire civilization. Although the exact intent of this messaging remains unclear, the ultimatum served as a basis for escalating the conflict further by targeting civilian infrastructure across Iran in an attempt to force Tehran to the table. Moments before the ultimatum’s deadline expired, Pakistan managed to mediate a ceasefire between the parties to the conflict, and, reportedly, China’s last-minute intervention compelled Tehran to agree.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
– President Trump, Truth Social
Similarly, the fluidity of messaging coming from U.S. President Donald Trump hasraised confusion among the parties to the conflict and the upper echelons of Washington’s military establishment, suggesting the ceasefire was a political decision rather than a strategic one. Prior to the announcement of the two-week truce between the U.S. and Iran, a senior Gulf official speaking to POLITICO stated they had “no idea what Trump is thinking”. Echoing this sentiment, another Gulf official told Reuters the ceasefire represents the “worst-case scenario for the Gulf states”. Furthermore, according to Kann News, the agreement was implemented without consulting Israel or taking input from senior Israeli security and IDF officials. In the meantime, a senior oil executive stated that the industry is contacting the White House to protest provisions allowing Iran to toll vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, stressing that industry leaders were blindsided by the ceasefire’s conditions, further reinforcing the perception that Washington finalized the agreement without consulting the impacted parties of the conflict.
With the conditions of the ceasefire still remaining unclear, there have been differing statements by the U.S. and Iran concerning the details that will set the ceasefire in motion, and the basis for renewed negotiations scheduled between delegates in Islamabad on Saturday. On Truth Social, Trump declared the ceasefire contingent on Iran immediately opening the Strait of Hormuz to global maritime traffic, emphasizing that Washington received a 10-point proposal from Tehran considered a workable basis for an agreement. However, with the specifics of that proposal remaining vague, Iran has not lifted its blockade on the Strait. Corroborating a TASS report, a senior Iranian official stated that Tehran will allow no more than 15 vessels per day to transit the Strait under the two-week agreement. Furthermore, according to the Financial Times, Iran will implement a tolling system requiring oil tankers to notify Iranian authorities of their intent to transit beforehand and pay the mandated toll using cryptocurrency, in the form of Bitcoin or stablecoins.
With the situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz remaining in a quagmire, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in a statement via the IRGC-aligned Fars News Agency, declared a “historic victory” over its adversaries, claiming that Washington has agreed to the 10-point proposal presented by Tehran as a basis for establishing negotiations. According to Iranian sources, the proposal’s terms include U.S. acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a non-aggression guarantee, war reparations, the withdrawal of American combat forces from the region, and a comprehensive ceasefire across all fronts, including Israel’s unresolved conflict with Hezbollah. Following these claims, U.S. President Donald Trump vehemently denied that Washington is entertaining Tehran’s 10-point plan, emphasizing that the U.S. has not agreed to any of Iran’s demands and stated that the Islamabad negotiations will instead center on a 15-point U.S. proposal, which stands in stark contrast to Tehran’s framework. Further strengthening the U.S. stance regarding Tehran’s proposal, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, at a recent briefing, underlined that the “Iranians originally put forward a 10-point proposal which was fundamentally unserious, unacceptable, and completely discarded”.
In spite of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s efforts in mediating renewed rounds of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, whether the talks will revolve around the U.S. 15-point proposal or Iran’s contradicting 10-point proposal remains to be seen, according to The Wall Street Journal. As the direction of the talks is yet to be determined, the two-week ceasefire set in motion remains overly fragile—with the Strait of Hormuz still under a blockade, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) continuing operations targeting Hezbollah assets in Lebanon, the ceasefire has ultimately failed to halt regional hostilities for the time being.
According to the Associated Press (AP), the two-week ceasefire provisions allow both Iran and Oman to impose fees on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. A regional official speaking to the AP stated that Iran intends to use the generated toll revenue to reconstruct its damaged infrastructure. However, as reported by Asharq Al-Awsat, Oman’s Minister of Transport stated that the nation will not participate in the tolling system, asserting that the Sultanate will abide by its existing maritime agreements. In response to Iran’s unilateral imposition of transit fees, a European Commission spokesperson expressed concern, stating that “freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz must be guaranteed without any fees or tolls”. As frustration regarding the Strait of Hormuz mounts among involved parties, U.S. President Donald Trump has not yet commented on involved parties’ demands, except for underlining that imposing fees on vessels could become a ‘joint venture’ between the U.S. and Iran in order to secure the safety of transiting vessels, according to the ABC Network.
Likewise, although allegedly covered by the two-week ceasefire, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah continues to escalate, with no signs of de-escalation in sight. Following the declaration of the truce between the U.S. and Iran, IDF Chief of the General Staff Eyal Zamir expressed IDF’s determination to continue striking Hezbollah assets across Lebanon. Zamir stated that the IDF will “utilize every operational opportunity” to ensure the security of northern Israel’s residents—placing Israel’s military posture in direct contrast to Washington’s push to cease hostilities. After consecutive waves of airstrikes targeting Beirut and the surrounding countryside, which left hundreds of casualties according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that the strikes on command centers targeted hundreds of Hezbollah militants, calling it the group’s most significant blow since the “pager operation.” Israel’s strikes on Hezbollah followed the Iranian regime’s launch of ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory, which occurred just after the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran went into effect.
Subsequent to the IDF’s retaliation targeting Hezbollah assets across Lebanon, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister stated in an ITV interview that the Iranian delegation will only attend the Islamabad peace talks if Israel halts its operations in Lebanon, stressing that any regional peace must include Beirut. Further reinforcing Tehran’s stance concerning Lebanon, Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Ghalibaf asserted that the 10-point proposal, including a ceasefire encompassing Lebanon, must form the framework of negotiations which will determine future steps to ensure putting an end to the continued hostilities. According to The Wall Street Journal, Iran informed mediators that bilateral talks with Washington remain strictly contingent on achieving a Lebanese ceasefire. Tehran further warned it reserves the right to revoke its decision to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and could resume attacks on regional nations if hostilities toward Lebanon and Iran do not cease.
Although U.S. Vice President JD Vance dismissed the likelihood of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire extending to Lebanon, NBC News reports that President Donald Trump has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scale back strikes in the country. Following repeated calls for direct talks by the belligerents of the conflict—and likely influenced by Trump’s pressure to de-escalate—Netanyahu announced he has instructed his cabinet to begin negotiations with Lebanon “as soon as possible.” He emphasized that discussions will focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations. Reportedly, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States will lead these direct negotiations with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, a move that further underscores Washington’s rapid shift in posture as it pushes Israel toward diplomatic channels.
Washington’s change in posture leaves the Middle East in a strategic dilemma, where Gulf countries will either be subjected to Iran’s newly established tolling system or forced to re-evaluate their broken trust in Tehran to re-establish relations and leave behind the recent hostilities. With both options proving unfavorable, it is increasingly clear that the Islamabad negotiations have left the Gulf’s core interests entirely unaddressed, sowing division among neighboring states over how to handle the fallout resulting from the direct conflict between Washington and Tehran. Likewise, Israeli regional interests are jeopardized by this ceasefire and the renewed talks between the main belligerents, prompting Israel to push harder to change Washington’s tone. As for the Iranian populace, even though it was only mentioned as a side goal of Washington’s Epic Fury campaign, the state apparatus remains firmly in power, raising serious concerns regarding the well-being of Iranians who supported U.S. military action—which, if the U.S. abandons its objectives of Operation Epic Fury as a direct result of negotiations with the regime, will likely encourage regime forces to further crack down on the opposition, potentially leading to human rights violations more severe than those witnessed during the nationwide protests months ago.
“This is the worst-case scenario for the Gulf states.”
– Gulf Official, Speaking to Reuters
If the U.S. agrees to Iranian demands, Washington will likely lose the support of both the Iranian opposition and its Gulf allies, resulting in a decisive strategic loss. Although the probability of Washington accepting these terms remains low, the recent shift in rhetoric from the upper echelons of the U.S. government indicates a non-zero chance of capitulation. Echoing the stark warning of a regional official, the likelihood of Tehran’s 10-point proposal materializing represents the “worst-case scenario“. However, the adverse effects of such an agreement would not be limited to the Gulf; they would destabilize the entire region, leaving Washington as the only actor to secure an off-ramp from the conflict, which, without a doubt, would demonstrate that the decision was driven solely by short-term political interests.
On the other hand, the U.S.’s change in posture may not reflect the truth as a whole. It should be noted that previous rapid shifts in U.S. posturing have often preceded actions that contradict public messaging. In either scenario, the U.S. may leverage the ceasefire to push the Iranian regime to accept its 15-point plan, a framework designed to cripple the regime beyond the point of recovery. If these talks prove to be merely a front for the U.S. and Israel to develop more sophisticated operational plans and buy the necessary time to implement them, the conflict could soon escalate beyond the threshold of a manageable off-ramp. While Washington publicly appears eager to resolve the crisis and achieve its predefined objectives through diplomacy, this rhetoric may be a strategic feint, leaving Tehran with just two weeks to prepare for a severe uptick in joint U.S.-Israeli strikes.
Ultimately, the final outcome rests entirely on the actions of the involved actors. As the Islamabad talks approach, contradictory messaging from both sides has sown confusion among the public and the media. While this rhetoric serves the political interests of the primary belligerents, it proves deeply harmful to the involuntary actors caught in the crossfire. After more than a month of sustained hostilities, the conflict has already resulted in thousands of casualties across the Middle East and material damages reaching into the high billions, leaving the region desperate for a sustainable agreement that may bring peace so that the wounds of the war can be healed.
