In a surprising development, US President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Wednesday morning a two-week ceasefire with Iran, contingent upon the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to navigation. Trump’s announcement came shortly before the expiration of the deadline he had set for striking Iranian infrastructure and power plants, threatening to “obliterate Iranian civilization” unless Iran agreed to a deal. Despite this, Washington had previously set April 9th ​​as the deadline for ending the war, a date Israel deemed insufficient at the time, requiring additional weeks. So, has the US strategy of diplomacy under military pressure succeeded in achieving its objectives?

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: “Subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the full, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend attacks on Iran for a period of two weeks.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz “will be possible within two weeks in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, and taking into account technical constraints,” adding that Iran “will cease all its defensive operations if the attacks against it cease.” The Iranian Supreme National Security Council announced its acceptance of the ceasefire and that it would begin negotiations with the United States in Islamabad starting Saturday 11.

It appears that Washington must balance the interests of the United States in general, and the future of this administration in particular, with helping Israel achieve its objectives in the region, especially after 41 days of attrition warfare and losses, which have negatively impacted the American economy, Trump’s popularity, and US alliances in the Middle East.

It appears that Washington must balance the interests of the United States in general, and the future of this administration in particular, with helping Israel achieve its objectives in the region, especially after 41 days of attrition warfare and losses, which have negatively impacted the American economy, Trump’s popularity, and US alliances in the Middle East.

In a previous article titled “America and Israel’s War on Iran: A Calculation of Profit and Loss,” I addressed the question of the extent to which the United States and Israel achieved their objectives in launching the war against Iran, a point that aligns with the conclusions reached in the Israeli press yesterday. The newspaper Maariv asserted that Israel and the United States lost this war, with Iran emerging victorious. The paper pointed to the Iranians’ success in imposing an agreement on the United States, an agreement they largely drafted before it was promoted by the Pakistanis and Turks, after the Iranians rejected the agreement proposed by the United States. The Israeli newspaper also emphasized that Iran fired the final shot in this battle and remained steadfast after 41 days of the joint American-Israeli aggression. The newspaper argued that this outcome is further evidenced by an examination of the war’s objectives and principles of engagement in light of the results, which demonstrate that “the Iranian regime emerged with the upper hand.”

READ: How the Iran War Turned Civilian Lifelines into Bargaining Currency

In a related development, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Wednesday that the Israeli leadership is concerned about a potential agreement between the United States and Iran, fearing it will not take Israeli interests into account. Four issues are causing concern for Israel: the fate of Iran’s nuclear program and enriched uranium; Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and program; the sanctions imposed on Iran, which Israel has strongly advocated for maintaining; and the war with Hezbollah after Pakistan announced that the ceasefire included Lebanon. It appears that Washington must balance the interests of the United States in general, and the future of this administration in particular, with helping Israel achieve its objectives in the region, especially after 41 days of attrition warfare and losses, which have negatively impacted the American economy, Trump’s popularity, and US alliances in the Middle East.

On another front, domestic American discontent with the behavior, stances, and policies of US President Donald Trump has reached its peak. According to The Hill, President Trump’s explicit threat to “end civilization” has sparked outrage among Americans, not to mention his other related statements that have angered many lawmakers, politicians, media figures, and the general public. The number of calls from lawmakers for his impeachment has reached historic levels, not to mention the significant rise in public criticism. By Tuesday afternoon, more than 50 Democratic representatives and prominent members of the Senate had called for his removal and the invocation of Article 25 of the Constitution. This article pertains to the removal of the president due to his inability to perform his duties and the appointment of the vice president as acting president. It is one of the most important constitutional mechanisms that can practically lead to the removal of the president or the transfer of his powers. However, it remains far from being practically activated at present because this mechanism requires the approval of two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which is difficult to achieve so far.

The US and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations Saturday April 11 in Pakistan for a period of two weeks. Pakistan has developed a framework for ending hostilities and shared it with both Iran and the US. This framework includes a two-phase approach: an immediate ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement. The US had previously proposed a 15-point plan, which Iran rejected as excessive. The plan included a 30-day ceasefire, the dismantling of Iran’s three main nuclear facilities, a halt to all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, a suspension of its ballistic missile program, a reduction in support for its allies in the region, and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Washington would lift sanctions on Iran and provide assistance in developing its civilian nuclear program. This US plan mirrors a previous proposal presented by the administration and discussed with Iran before the war began on February 28.

Iran refuses to negotiate any restrictions on its ballistic missile program, which has been a red line for Tehran in its talks with Washington. Ballistic missiles are considered part of the conventional military arsenal, which all countries have the right to possess and develop within their official military systems.

Iran refuses to negotiate any restrictions on its ballistic missile program, which has been a red line for Tehran in its talks with Washington. Ballistic missiles are considered part of the conventional military arsenal, which all countries have the right to possess and develop within their official military systems.

Tehran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. In fact, a fatwa (religious ruling) issued by the former Supreme Leader explicitly forbids the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran has already joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which Israel refuses to join. In accordance with its contractual obligations, Tehran has conceded to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Islamic Republic also had previously signed an agreement with Washington in 2015 to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the easing of US sanctions. President Trump withdrew from this agreement during his first term in office in 2018 and recently started a war with Iran, politically, economically, and militarily. Iran refuses to negotiate any restrictions on its ballistic missile program, which has been a red line for Tehran in its talks with Washington. Ballistic missiles are considered part of the conventional military arsenal, which all countries have the right to possess and develop within their official military systems.

In response, Iran presented a ten-point plan, which the United States rejected but accepted as a basis for negotiations. The ten-point Iranian plan stipulates a complete cessation of hostilities on all active fronts, the withdrawal of US forces from all their positions in the region, the lifting of sanctions on Iran, the release of its frozen assets, reconstruction efforts, and the establishment of a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, in which Iran and Oman are considered key players. There is talk of Iran and Oman imposing fees on ships transiting the Strait, with Iran stating that the revenue generated could aid its reconstruction efforts. It was agreed that ending the war would require international guarantees and a UN Security Council resolution. Iran wields considerable political power within the Security Council, comparable to that of the United States, which possesses a veto power, through its allies, China and Russia. The two countries had previously blocked a Security Council resolution that would have enforced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by force.

From the Strait of Hormuz to global markets: The chain reaction of war on energy security

It may be difficult for Washington to return to fighting, given a number of reasons that are particularly important to Trump. The first of these reasons relates to increasing domestic opposition to the war, and to the immediate improvement in the American and global market situation following the ceasefire, after American newspapers acknowledged significant losses, translating into billions of dollars in lost jobs for American citizens and economic inflation. Major American newspapers considered that halting the war spares Washington from escalation and saves the country from further economic losses. This comes despite many of these sources emphasizing that Trump did not achieve a clear diplomatic breakthrough or success in stopping the war, describing it as a temporary and unstable truce. The second reason stems from the welcome given to the ceasefire by Washington’s Western allies, who consider it a moment of relief for the region and the world, and acknowledge the need to reach a comprehensive agreement that prevents the war from erupting again. The Gulf states’ position on the ceasefire was generally positive, considering it an opportunity to avoid escalation and to protect the region’s political and economic stability. The third reason is the position of the Gulf states on stopping the war. They are close allies of Washington and may pay the price for that war because of a unilateral American decision in favor of Israel and to fulfill its declared goals, despite those countries’ firm stance before the war of wanting to avoid it.

It may now be difficult for the countries of the region to ignore or avoid reconsidering their security ties with Washington. This recent war has demonstrated that understanding and cooperation among the countries of the region have become a top priority, as they all strive for economic prosperity, which can only be achieved through political stability. Many of the world’s major powers seek peace and economic cooperation, far removed from the atmosphere of war and the exploitation of other nations’ resources, as recent history attests. These developments could be of particular importance to the Palestinian cause and its future, both in Gaza and the West Bank, if the Palestinians can effectively leverage them with their neighbors and allies in the region. Now following the stumbling negotiations between the U S and Iran in Islamabad which started on Saturday 11, the resumption of war looms again in the horizon. It will take courage and compromise from both sides to avoid this gloomy scenario.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor