The announcement of a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran has brought a cautious pause to a conflict that, for 40 days, threatened to spiral into a full-scale regional war with global consequences. After weeks of US-Israeli air strikes, Iranian missile retaliation, attacks on Gulf-linked targets and repeated disruptions to international shipping lanes, the agreement has momentarily eased tensions in one of the world’s most volatile regions. While the ceasefire remains fragile and limited in scope, it has nonetheless created diplomatic space that had all but disappeared amid escalating military exchanges.

The truce was brokered through intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy led by Pakistan, a role that has drawn international attention and cautious praise. Islamabad emerged as a key intermediary at a time when traditional diplomatic channels between Washington and Tehran were effectively frozen. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly described the agreement as a product of “wisdom and understanding” on both sides, framing Pakistan’s mediation as a contribution to regional stability and global peace. Diplomatic sources suggest that Pakistan’s longstanding working relationships with both the United States and Iran, combined with its strategic interest in avoiding a wider regional conflict, positioned it as a credible and acceptable facilitator for initial de-escalation.

Under the terms of the ceasefire, the United States has agreed to suspend all military strikes against Iran for an initial period of 14 days, while Iran has committed to halting its retaliatory operations during the same window. Israel has also announced a pause in its direct attacks on Iranian targets, though it has made clear that the ceasefire does not automatically extend to other theatres, particularly Lebanon. Central to the agreement is Iran’s decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime corridor through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply passes. Tehran had effectively shut down or severely restricted passage through the strait in response to the US-Israeli campaign that began in late February, triggering sharp spikes in global energy prices and raising fears of a prolonged economic shock.

Trump has sought to downplay the extent of Iranian demands, insisting that Tehran’s nuclear stockpile would be fully addressed in any final deal.

Trump has sought to downplay the extent of Iranian demands, insisting that Tehran’s nuclear stockpile would be fully addressed in any final deal.

For Washington, the ceasefire has been framed as the result of military objectives being met. US President Donald Trump has claimed that Iran agreed to the “complete, immediate and safe opening” of the Strait of Hormuz and submitted a 10-point proposal that he described as a workable foundation for negotiations. Trump has argued that the two-week pause is intended to allow both sides to finalise a broader agreement, though he has repeatedly warned that hostilities could resume quickly if talks fail. His statements reflect a familiar pattern of combining diplomatic overtures with explicit threats, a strategy that critics argue has contributed to the cycle of escalation in the first place.

While the full details of Iran’s reported 10-point proposal have not been officially released, diplomatic reporting suggests it includes far-reaching demands and concessions. These reportedly include a fundamental US commitment to non-aggression, recognition of Iran’s right to maintain a nuclear enrichment programme, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, the release of Iranian assets frozen abroad, and the termination of resolutions against Iran at both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. The proposal is also said to call for the withdrawal of US combat forces from regional bases and compensation for war-related damages, potentially funded through fees levied on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials have signalled that such compensation would be used for national reconstruction following the conflict.

Trump, however, has sought to downplay the extent of Iranian demands, insisting that Tehran’s nuclear stockpile would be fully addressed in any final deal. He has suggested that some elements of the leaked proposal do not reflect what is actually under negotiation, creating uncertainty about the true scope of potential compromise. Notably, since the ceasefire announcement, Washington has avoided public discussion of several key Iranian demands, including sanctions relief, asset releases and long-term control arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz. The absence of clarity has reinforced scepticism among analysts who question whether the current truce can realistically evolve into a comprehensive settlement.

From Tehran’s perspective, the ceasefire is explicitly conditional. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran would cease its defensive operations only if US and Israeli attacks stop. Iran has confirmed that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz will resume for the duration of the ceasefire, with passage coordinated alongside Iranian armed forces, a detail that underscores Tehran’s insistence on retaining leverage over the waterway. Regional officials have indicated that both Iran and Oman may charge transit fees during this period, with Iran’s share reportedly earmarked for post-war reconstruction.

Iran has also reiterated its long-standing position that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, while maintaining that its nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities are matters of national sovereignty. Significantly, the United States has made no public mention of Iran’s missile programme since the ceasefire announcement, despite previously demanding severe restrictions or dismantlement. Tehran has been unequivocal in stating that its missile capabilities are not negotiable, a stance that could become a major stumbling block in upcoming talks.

Israel’s position has added another layer of complexity. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the ceasefire with Iran, he has stressed that it does not apply to Israel’s ongoing operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon. This position appeared to contradict statements from Islamabad suggesting that the truce included a halt to Israeli attacks in Lebanon. In practice, Israeli strikes continued in southern Lebanese cities even after the ceasefire came into effect, highlighting the fragmented and compartmentalised nature of the agreement.

Lebanon was drawn into the conflict after Hezbollah, aligned with Tehran, launched attacks on Israel in early March. Hezbollah has stated that its actions were in retaliation for Israel’s killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the outset of the war, as well as for Israel’s alleged violations of a previous ceasefire in Lebanon. Lebanese authorities report that nearly 1,500 people have been killed since the fighting escalated, including dozens of health workers, underscoring the severe humanitarian cost of the wider conflict.

Against this backdrop, the next phase of the ceasefire centres on negotiations scheduled to begin in Islamabad, again highlighting Pakistan’s pivotal role. The talks, expected to bring together US and Iranian delegations under Pakistani mediation, will test whether the current pause in hostilities can be transformed into a more durable political framework. For Pakistan, hosting the negotiations represents both a diplomatic opportunity and a significant responsibility. Islamabad has positioned itself as a neutral facilitator, seeking to stabilise a region whose turmoil directly affects its own security and economic interests.

Analysts caution that the talks could still collapse, particularly given the deep mistrust between Washington and Tehran and the unresolved questions surrounding sanctions, nuclear oversight and regional military deployments. For now, the ceasefire stands as a narrow but significant opening. It has temporarily stabilised energy markets, reduced the immediate risk of further escalation and demonstrated that diplomacy, even after weeks of violence, remains possible. Pakistan’s mediation has been central to this outcome, reinforcing its emerging role as a regional diplomatic actor capable of engaging with rival powers. Whether this moment evolves into a lasting settlement or dissolves into renewed conflict will depend on what unfolds in Islamabad in the coming days. The two-week window is short, the stakes are high, and the world is watching to see whether restraint and dialogue can prevail over confrontation once the guns fall silent, even if only briefly.

The writer has been teaching at various universities for the past 12 years. He is also the Head of Research and Investigation at 365 News, works as Web Editor at Daily Times, and can be reached at Dr.Muhammad waqasbutt@gmail.com.

© Daily Times