The temporary ceasefire, which is stated to last for two weeks and is based on the agreement of the parties to meet in Pakistan on April 10, was signed by the US and Iran on the morning of April 8. Israel, however, was not among the signatories of the agreement. However, with the attacks it carried out on Lebanon on Wednesday, April 8, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 300 people, it has shown that it is not actually outside the process; it is an actor that will affect the intensity of violence, the war, and consequently, peace. The presence of doubt, suspicion, and mutually proposed conditions between Tehran and Washington, in addition to Israel’s agenda, indicates that the process is quite sensitive and fragile. Therefore, during this period when the temporary ceasefire is under threat, it remains uncertain under what conditions and how lasting peace will be achieved. Currently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s support for the ceasefire, while announcing that attacks on Lebanon will continue, indicates that he has a say and influence over the ceasefire, even tho he is not a party to it. Iran has declared that the ceasefire has been violated due to attacks on Lebanon. However, the Iranian delegation has gone to Islamabad, giving diplomacy a chance.
There are various factors that will determine the fate of the ceasefire and the negotiations. At the forefront of these factors is Lebanon and Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon. It has been explicitly stated by Pakistan that the ceasefire also includes Lebanon. However, the Netanyahu administration has shared with the world public that Lebanon is outside the ceasefire and that it will not withdraw from Lebanon until Hezbollah no longer poses a threat to Israel. Thus, the feared and most concerning scenario has materialized, and the possibility that Israel could harm the process has become a reality on the first day of the ceasefire. Subsequently, the United States also accepted Israel’s narrative and declared that Lebanon was outside the ceasefire process.
In addition to Israel’s disregard for the ceasefire, the differing and contradictory statements from the U.S. and Tehran regarding the content and process of the ceasefire also indicate that uncertainty, rather than stability and peace, is prevailing in the Middle East in the short and medium term. The main reason for the different and contradictory statements is that the parties are trying to prove to their domestic and global public that they have gained from the process thru propaganda. For example, the United States, in a statement made after the ceasefire, declared that Iran’s nuclear capacity and missile system had been destroyed, stating that it had achieved its objectives. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that Iran no longer poses a threat to the US and the world. The destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile production and capacity is among the top priorities of the White House. Among the goals expressed by U.S. President Donald Trump was the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile production capacity and stockpiles. This element was also among the main criticisms Trump made of the Iran Nuclear Agreement signed during Barack Obama’s presidency. One of the main reasons for Trump withdrawing his country from the 2015 agreement was that the relevant text did not include Tehran’s ballistic missile systems. Therefore, having a different arrangement in the current period compared to 2015 is among the elements that would legitimize the Trump administration and its foreign policy.
A conditional ceasefire evolving into a sensitive and fragile lasting peace will also depend on the concessions made by the US and Iran, in addition to Israel’s attacks. For example, a ceasefire was declared on the condition that the Strait of Hormuz would be opened to the passage of ships from all states. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that a ceasefire would be accepted on the condition that attacks on Iran are stopped. The acceptance of these conditions but the Strait of Hormuz not being fully opened, the continuation of attacks on Lebanon, which Iran has designated as a non-target area, indicate that the process is hanging by a thread and, despite their harsh rhetoric, both the US and Iran continue to give diplomacy a chance. At this point, it is believed that Trump’s stance and the increasing opposition to Trump within the American public will be one of the determining factors of the nature of the ceasefire. Trump’s current statements indicate that a long-term ceasefire is being aimed for, and that the talks starting on April 10-11 will progress in this direction. On the other hand, he continues to make different, contradictory statements. For example, Trump continues to insist that the regime change he described as “efficient” has taken place.
Before the ceasefire, there was a tense wait worldwide due to Trump’s threat that Iranian civilization would be destroyed beyond recovery, raising concerns that he would target civilians and continue committing war crimes. There were concerns that the US would carry out a comprehensive attack on Iran’s energy facilities and bridges, targeting civilians. On the other hand, the magnitude of Trump’s threat has led to the belief that Washington has many different options ahead. Especially, statements by U.S. Vise President J. D. Vance that could be interpreted in this direction can be given as an example. Vance noted that the U.S. might resort to weapons it has never used before. The statements suggesting that unconventional weapon options, in other words, nuclear options, are also on the table have led to the belief that the destruction and potential impact on the Middle East would be on a very large scale. In an attempt to alleviate concerns, the White House has announced to the world public that the aforementioned weapons will not be used. Iran has claimed that its response to such a significant and concerning threat would have effects beyond the region; it has suggested that as a result of its response, the US and its allies would be deprived of the region’s oil and gas resources for many years.
Since almost the beginning of the war on February 28, Trump has put forth various conditions and deadlines to sit at the ceasefire table and not attack Iran. However, due to Tehran’s non-compliance with the given deadlines and proposed conditions, Trump has also disregarded the deadlines he set, making changes not only to his targets but also to the timelines. For example, at one point, Trump threatened to carry out a large and comprehensive attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure, but suspended his threats and conditions as a result of developments on the ground. When reminded that the use of extensive and intense force in the attacks could constitute a war crime, Trump stated that he did not care about this situation. In response, Iran has interpreted Trump’s threats as signs that war crimes or even genocide could be committed.
Among the factors to be evaluated in the process is the stance of the Gulf countries. Especially, what Saudi Arabia will respond is of great importance. In addition to the historical rivalry that extends to regions outside the Middle East, such as Africa, security threats also shape the relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the turbulent history of the two countries, there have been periods when relations were severed and diplomatic relations were reestablished; there have been instances of Saudi Arabia attacking Iran. On such a foundation, it can be said that Riyadh has provided cautious support as long as its security concerns and distrust toward Iran continue. Despite the ceasefire, it continues to make military preparations in response to the ongoing attacks. At the same time, assessments continue to be made that Saudi Arabia wants Iran to emerge from the process weakened. In the American press before the ceasefire, there were reports that the Saudi Kingdom called on the US to end the war and weaken Iran as much as possible. Riyadh, however, has denied the allegations. The fact that there was no regime change even after the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and that the system remains functional as reflected to the international community, indicates that the Riyadh administration will be more concerned about Iran.
It is seen that Riyadh stands out within the framework of Trump and Netanyahu’s “new Middle East” goals. Especially before October 7, one of the main goals of the US-Israel duo was for Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords. In other words, the aim is for Saudi Arabia to initiate relations with Israel.
Another aspect of the ceasefire process that should be mentioned is Pakistan’s prominence. Normally, Pakistan has not been a prominent mediator, especially in high-stakes matters like today’s Iran War. However, in the context of the current crisis, having good relations with both the US and Iran has made Pakistan effective in mediating, shifting the role from Oman. In past negotiations, Oman and Qatar have been prominent as mediators. However, due to both Gulf countries being subjected to Iranian attacks, Pakistan has taken the lead in mediation. They have close relations with the Gulf countries, especially Iran. In this context, the close relationships have significant implications on the ground. For example, a defense cooperation agreement was signed between Islamabad and Tehran last year. On the Iranian side, the presence of the Shia population in Pakistan and their protests following attacks on Iran are another reason for Pakistan’s mediation. Additionally, it should be noted that Pakistan does not have diplomatic relations with Israel due to the Palestinian issue. As reported in the media, relations between the US and Pakistan have developed, especially since last year. Pakistan is a member of Trump’s Peace Council for Gaza. In addition, the fact that a large portion of Pakistan’s oil and natural gas is sourced from the Middle East has also contributed to its emergence as a mediator among the parties.
In conclusion, due to the conditional ceasefire and Israel’s intention to undermine it, the process is expected to proceed on a delicate balance. The evolution into a lasting ceasefire in the long term will depend on the aggressiveness of the US and Israel. In advanced negotiations, all disagreements are brought to the table, and it remains uncertain when the parties will fully embrace diplomacy. It should be remembered that the Iran War also began while negotiations were ongoing.
It is possible to say that Iran’s war of attrition has achieved certain goals, in other words, that Tehran responded to Trump’s “bluffs” with chess moves. Iran’s resistance to all threats is overshadowed by the destruction the country has endured. Key figures of the regime have been killed in the attacks. However, the continuation of the system, the regime, has been a development in favor of Iran. In this context, the support of the regime by the Iranian people, along with the opposition, is also an important indicator. On the other hand, it is believed that demands for reforming the system will increase if the war ends. Tehran may take various steps in this direction, even if they are merely symbolic. On the other hand, the fact that at least 3,000 people lost their lives due to the attacks and that the country’s civilian infrastructure suffered significant damage indicates that the recovery process ahead for Iran will be challenging.
Israel’s acceptance of this ceasefire, in which it was not involved, serves as evidence against the thesis that there are differences between Netanyahu and Trump regarding the purpose of the war. In the current period, the louder expression of claims in the US public that Trump initiated the war under Netanyahu’s influence also provides a framework for evaluating the positions of Tel Aviv and Washington. On the other hand, Lebanon’s insistence on being excluded from the ceasefire indicates that Tel Aviv’s expansionist agenda continues and its occupation goals are still in place.
