Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long
Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long
Within a single day, Donald Trump transitioned from warning that Iran’s civilization ‘will die tonight’ to endorsing the ten-point plan as a viable starting point for talks in Pakistan. The truce, initially, offers temporary relief to civilians across the Middle East who have endured relentless attacks since the U.S. and Israel launched their conflict with Iran on 28 February. However, Lebanon is excluded from this pause, as Israel’s strikes continue unabated. The respite elsewhere may be short-lived, with both Iran and the United States having compelling reasons to end the war. Yet, their publicly stated goals remain significantly divergent.
Two weeks remain for the two adversaries, who lack mutual trust, to reach a deal. U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance characterized the ceasefire as a ‘fragile truce,’ a cautiously realistic view. Meanwhile, both sides issue more expansive claims, each asserting victory. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told journalists it marked a ‘capital V military victory’ for the U.S., calling it ‘historic and overwhelming.’ He remarked, ‘The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism proved utterly incapable of defending itself, its people or its territory.’ Similarly, Tehran’s First Vice President Mohammed Reza Aref declared on social media, ‘the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun.’
Trump’s allies argue that the severe damage inflicted on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces compelled it to seek negotiations. They see his aggressive rhetoric as a strategic move. The Iranian perspective, however, emphasizes resilience, pointing to its continued ability to launch ballistic missiles and drones, and control the Strait of Hormuz, as evidence that it has pressured America into accepting its terms. The ten-point plan includes demands such as recognizing Iran’s military dominance over the strait, reparations, lifting sanctions, and releasing frozen assets. These provisions challenge American interests as much as they do Iran’s own demands.
The outcome of negotiations in Islamabad remains uncertain, yet the war and its aftermath are already transforming the Middle East. Initially, Trump and Netanyahu had vowed to bring about regime change in Iran, but the current ceasefire has not resulted in the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Instead, a regime once deemed on the brink of defeat now stands as a key negotiating partner. Domestic opponents of Iran, anticipating its downfall, are left unconfident by this shift. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical strategic asset, has become a new symbol of Iran’s deterrence. If hostilities resume, Iran’s capacity to disrupt global trade could cause economic turmoil.
Before 28 February, international shipping moved freely through the strait. Now, Iran proposes allowing vessels to transit it during the ceasefire, provided their routes align with military coordination. This arrangement could persist, potentially with tolls for shippers akin to those at the Suez Canal. Israel, which was not involved in the ceasefire negotiations, sought to intensify its campaign against Iran. In an election year, Netanyahu’s political rivals, including opposition leader Yair Lapid, criticize his approach as risking national security. They worry that tactical gains over Iran may not culminate in a lasting victory.