Can the US and Iran turn a ceasefire into a deal?

The US-Iran ceasefire, which was proclaimed endure nighttime by US chairman Donald ruff, brings a cautious sense of optimism and hope that the war may eventually come to an end. However, a ceasefire is not a peace agreement. The two-week pause in hostilities could unfold according to different scenarios: it could lead to meaningful negotiations and ultimately a comprehensive peace deal, or it could be terminated, and the conflict would enter a new phase. 

Moreover, we shouldn’t underestimate the fragility of such agreements. A ceasefire can be broken at any moment – within days or even hours. It’s entirely possible that Washington could abruptly change its stance; for instance, Trump might claim that Iran is acting in bad faith and use that as justification to end the ceasefire and resume military operations.

At the same time, the very structure of the ceasefire raises important questions. Reports indicate that the agreement includes a 10-point plan proposed by Iran, which the US has acknowledged as the basis for current negotiations. These talks are expected to take place in Islamabad, with Pakistan playing the role of mediator.

Both the ceasefire and America’s acceptance of Iran’s proposal as a foundation for negotiations raise many questions. If Iran has truly been “defeated” as Trump has repeatedly claimed during the 39 days of intense conflict, or if it has been “effectively destroyed” as his comments suggest, then why is Washington considering Tehran’s offers as a starting point for peace talks?

The aforementioned 10-point plan – which is said to form the basis for a potential peace agreement and which, at least rhetorically, Trump seems willing to discuss – deserves particular scrutiny. The points include commitments to non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the lifting of primary and secondary sanctions, the termination of UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA Board of Governors’ decisions, compensation payments to Iran, the withdrawal of American troops from the region, and the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that many of these points are highly contentious and, in some cases, nearly impossible to implement. This is especially true regarding the demand for the withdrawal of US troops from the region. It’s hard to imagine that Washington would genuinely agree to such a move under pressure from Tehran. For the US, this would not just mean a military realignment; it would essentially dismantle a significant portion of its regional influence. Geopolitically speaking, such a decision would appear as a voluntary relinquishment of US interests cultivated over several decades, and would increase Iran’s geopolitical standing both regionally and globally.

Agreeing to this point would mean that the US is effectively endorsing a significant reduction of its geopolitical influence in the Middle East. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that the US will be reluctant to take such a step. Moreover, with the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence coming up, it’s unlikely that Trump (who coincidentally is also celebrating his 80th birthday this year) would want to mark this occasion with what could be seen as a geopolitical capitulation.

The proposal to end hostilities across all fronts, including in Lebanon, also raises serious concerns. Even if such a demand is formally included in the negotiation package, its practical implementation is highly questionable. Reports are already emerging about continued strikes on Hezbollah militia positions in Lebanon, with no signs that Israel is prepared to fully scale back its military operations or alter its current strategy. In fact, Israel will likely be focused on securing at least some form of victory for itself. Thus, this appears to be more of a desired political outcome for Iran than a realistic commitment that could be swiftly and consistently executed by all parties.

Similarly, the idea of compensation payments to Iran seems even less feasible. Politically, it’s hard to imagine the US directly agreeing to compensate Tehran for war damage. This would not only impose financial costs on Washington but would also symbolize an acknowledgment of responsibility – something the US is unlikely to accept. Consequently, this point seems more like an element of Iran’s maximalist position rather than a genuine condition for any future agreement.

Of particular interest is the point regarding Iran’s continued control over the Strait of Hormuz. Here, we may find one of the key geopolitical priorities. If we were to hypothetically assume that the US agreed to such a formulation, it would signify much more than mere acknowledgment of the status quo. Essentially, it would equate to recognizing Iran’s dominance over one of the most crucial strategic nodes in global energy trade. In other words, Washington would be indirectly acknowledging Tehran’s geopolitical triumph.

Furthermore, if Iran maintains and institutionalizes its control over the Strait of Hormuz, it gains a powerful economic tool for exerting pressure and reaping benefits. Tehran has already indicated that hostile nations would be required to pay two million dollars for passage through the strait. From this perspective, Iran would effectively establish a long-term financial compensation mechanism – not directly from the American budget, but through external users of the route: the Arab states, European countries, and American commercial entities. Thus, compensation would come not from direct payments but from revenues derived from control over this strategic artery. This is why the acceptance of this point would not merely be a concession; it would signal a recognition of a new balance of power in favor of Iran.

In this context, other proposals appear more realistic – specifically, a partial or phased lifting of key sanctions, as well as a potential reevaluation or suspension of certain international legal restrictions, including UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA governing board decisions. These elements could become bargaining chips, as they allow for flexible interpretation, gradual implementation, and the potential for politically advantageous presentations for both parties.

When it comes to recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the US is likely to adopt a more complex and ambiguous stance. Washington may not directly deny Iran’s right to limited nuclear activities, but it will likely encumber that right with numerous conditions, technical constraints, verification mechanisms, and international oversight, effectively narrowing Tehran’s operational freedom. In essence, the US will probably seek a diplomatic framework that appears to be a compromise but fundamentally preserves pressure and control.

Therefore, viewing the 10-point plan not as a mere declaration but as a potential foundation for a real agreement reveals that its provisions vary significantly in terms of feasibility. Some points demonstrate Iran’s maximalist negotiating position and are unlikely to be fully accepted by the US. Others may serve as points for negotiation and compromise. Only a few points seem to form a realistic basis for further discussions. Consequently, the very act of discussing this proposal is important not so much as a sign of impending peace but as an indicator of the conditions under which Tehran seeks to solidify its military, political, and geo-economic positions in a post-conflict reality.

The role of Pakistan as a mediator in this emerging negotiation process deserves special attention. The fact that Islamabad has become the negotiation venue is significant and reflects several geopolitical trends.

Firstly, Pakistan has traditionally maintained working relationships with both Iran and the US. Despite complicated relations with Washington in recent years, Pakistan remains a crucial regional player with communication channels to both sides. Its ties with Iran are bolstered not only by geographical proximity and shared security concerns but also by pragmatic cooperation in energy and border stability. Moreover, Pakistan is the only Muslim nation recognized as a nuclear power, which considerably elevates its stakes as a negotiator.

Secondly, selecting Pakistan as a mediator may indicate a desire to move away from traditional negotiation venues associated with the West or international organizations, opting instead for a more neutral or flexible diplomatic environment. This approach can reduce public pressure and facilitate negotiations in a more confidential format. 

In addition, for Pakistan, this represents a significant opportunity to elevate its international standing. By acting as a mediator in such a sensitive conflict, Islamabad positions itself to play a more prominent role in regional and even global politics. Moreover, it’s important to consider the broader context – specifically, the increasing influence of ‘Global South’ nations in conflict resolution when mediation increasingly extends beyond the traditional Western diplomatic sphere.

As for the ceasefire and the upcoming negotiations, the situation remains highly uncertain at this stage. The ceasefire should be viewed not as a resolution to the conflict but rather as a temporary pause, the outcome of which is still unclear. 

---

---