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 shifted from issuing dire warnings about Iran’s fate to endorsing its ten-point proposal as a viable foundation for talks. This ceasefire, primarily, offers a temporary reprieve for civilians in the Middle East who have endured continuous bombardment since the US and Israel initiated hostilities against Iran on 28 February. However, Lebanon’s population is not included in this pause. Despite claiming the ceasefire did not cover Lebanon, Israel launched a major offensive of air strikes, raising concerns about its sustainability in other regions.

Opposing Claims and Divergent Visions

Both Iran and the US have compelling motives to conclude the conflict, yet their stated objectives remain at odds. The US Vice-President, J.D. Vance, labeled the ceasefire a “fragile truce,” a cautious outlook that aligns with the current situation. Meanwhile, more confident assertions emerge from each side, as they simultaneously assert their triumphs. At the Pentagon, the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, declared it a “capital V military victory,” claiming the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism had failed to protect its people or territory.

“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, proclaimed on social media that “the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun.” Trump’s allies argue that the significant damage inflicted on Iran by the US and Israel compelled it to engage in dialogue. Conversely, Iranians maintain that their ability to resist, including missile launches and control over the Strait of Hormuz, has pressured the US into negotiations.

Key Demands and Unresolved Tensions

The ten-point plan proposed by Iran contains demands that pose challenges for both parties. These include Iran’s claim to military dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, a call for reparations, the removal of sanctions, and the release of frozen assets. Whether the Islamabad talks will yield a durable agreement remains uncertain, given the similarities to previous Geneva discussions. Those talks had seemed promising before the US and Israel resumed their campaign against Iran.

Initially, Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu had vowed to overthrow Iran’s regime. However, despite the US’s efforts to portray the killing of key Iranian figures as the start of a new era, the regime is now poised to become a full negotiation partner. Internal critics of Iran, who had hoped for its collapse, may find this development unsettling. Trump’s earlier demands for unconditional surrender now appear less certain, with the upcoming talks in Islamabad set to test the durability of the ceasefire.

The Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a critical issue in the negotiations. Iran’s capacity to block maritime traffic in the strait, potentially disrupting global trade, underscores its strategic leverage. Before the conflict, international ships moved freely through the waterway, but Iran now insists on coordination with its military to ensure continued access. The possibility of tolls for transiting the strait, akin to the Suez Canal, adds another layer to the geopolitical calculus.