In the space of a drama-filled day, Donald Trump shifted from warning that Iran’s “whole civilisation will die tonight” to announcing it was an “honour to have this Longterm problem close to a resolution”.
Less than two hours before the US president’s deadline for the Islamic republic to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face being bombed back to the “stone ages”, Trump agreed to a two-week ceasefire to halt the US and Israel’s war against Iran.
It was conditioned on Tehran agreeing to the immediate reopening of the key waterway, the de facto closure of which had triggered the biggest energy crisis in decades, pushing petrol prices in the US above $4 a gallon and an increasing source of jeopardy for Trump.
Shortly afterwards, the Islamic regime announced it had accepted the ceasefire, and would allow safe passage through the strait “via coordination” with Iran’s military — the very force holding the waterway hostage.
In the end both the US and Iran blinked as they appeared set to escalate to a whole new dangerous level. But, if it holds, it is a fragile truce, not a permanent end to a war between foes who have built deep distrust of each other over nearly half a century of hostilities.
“The starting positions are miles apart, but they are starting positions,” said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank. “Trump is pretty flexible. The Iranians might have to suck up some compromises because they are so battered.”
“All the options are on the table,” Savill added. “Some kind of compromise deal, a resumption of fairly significant fighting, or a messy dragged-out discussion where each side declares they got what they want but actually what we go back to is a low-level confrontation.”
Trump, seemingly desperate to douse the flames of the crisis he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignited by launching the war on February 28, will claim his brinkmanship led to the reopening of the strait, the fall in energy prices and the rise in markets.
Others will point out that the Gulf chokepoint was functioning perfectly smoothly before the conflict erupted.
The Islamic regime, meanwhile, did what it had repeatedly insisted it wouldn’t do: agree to a temporary ceasefire and to reopen the strait — its prime source of leverage — with no guarantees of a permanent end to the war, reparations or sanctions relief.
That may in part point to the pounding the republic has endured, with the US and Israel striking tens of thousands of targets during the conflict.
In recent days, Israeli bombs have struck at the heart of its industrial base, hitting steel plants, petrochemical facilities, research institutes, bridges and railways. Trump was also threatening to obliterate all its power plants if the strait did not open.
But another factor will also have been crucial to Tehran’s calculations: the president’s decision to accept, at least for now, Iran’s 10-point plan to reach a permanent end to the conflict as what the US president described as a “workable basis for negotiations”.
According to the Iranian readout, this includes the lifting of all sanctions on the republic, the unfreezing of its oil money held overseas, the withdrawal of American forces from bases in the region and an end to Israel’s war against Iran’s main proxy Hizbollah in Lebanon — which Israel has already objected to. Crucially, it also includes “regulated passage” through the strait under the co-ordination of the Iranian military.
If Iran had presented such conditions before the war, it would have been dismissed as a fanciful wish list.
One diplomat said the 10 points Tehran outlined were different from the plan presented to the US, which could lead to different interpretations that backfire.
However, the capricious president, who assembled the biggest US military force in the Middle East for decades and demanded the regime’s “unconditional surrender”, may apparently be willing to at least discuss some of those demands.
In his post announcing the ceasefire on Truth Social, Trump said “almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed”.
He made no mention of Iran’s missile arsenal or nuclear programme — his main justifications for launching the war — and said the US’s military objectives had been met, despite the battered Islamic regime holding the strait ransom and firing missiles and drones at the Gulf and Israel.
The US’s Arab allies, who have borne the brunt of Iran’s retaliatory strikes, will breathe easier in the hope that the threat to their energy facilities and infrastructure has ended, for now. Their concerns about Iran’s response if Trump had begun bombing the republic’s power stations were tangible.
But Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain will be wary about what comes next. They have been trapped between wanting the war to end and the fear of Trump walking away from the conflict, leaving them to deal with a wounded but more militaristic regime on their doorstep.
Though they had counselled Trump not to launch the war, once it started Riyadh and Abu Dhabi wanted the US at least to sufficiently degrade Iran’s missile and drone capability to neuter the threat the regime has used with such lethal effect.
They will also fret about the potential of Trump allowing Tehran to retain some form of control or tolling over the strait, which is crucial for their energy exports and trade.
Many in the Gulf will view the war as displaying the worst traits of the unpredictable president and the limitations on their ability to influence him.
Much will now depend on the negotiations, facilitated by Pakistan, that are expected to begin in Islamabad on Friday.
The Islamic regime warned that it would enter the talks with “distrust” of the US. It predictably claims Washington “surrendered to the Iranian nation’s determination” after enduring the onslaught from the world’s two most powerful armies.
But even if Trump makes concessions on some of the regime’s demands, the republic will be in a fragile state, faced with a long, deepening legitimacy crisis at home and the challenge of rebuilding a broken economy.
After Israel’s 12-day war against the republic last June, a brief sense of nationalism swiftly dissipated. Mass anti-regime protests in December and January, fuelled by economic grievances exacerbated by that conflict, only ended with a brutal crackdown that killed thousands.
“Iran’s ability to remain intact and retaliate may have improved its negotiating positions,” said Sanam Vakil at Chatham House. “But there are no winners. Everyone has lost in this war.”