Trump’s Iran “Ceasefire” Is Already Shaky and May Just Be a Tactical Delay

The Trump administration’s latest attempt to claim progress on the Iran conflict is unraveling before it even begins. Scheduled talks in Pakistan between the US and Iran are overshadowed by deep skepticism and a host of unresolved issues that suggest this ceasefire is more illusion than reality.

Iran, riding a wave of domestic and regional confidence, has set the agenda with a 10-point proposal that starkly contrasts with Trump’s own 15-point demand list. The key concession from Washington appears to be tacit acceptance of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes. This is no small matter. By effectively acknowledging Iran’s authority there, the US cedes a critical bargaining chip and signals a disturbing shift in power dynamics.

Tehran’s demands go far beyond control of the strait. They include lifting all US and UN sanctions, recognition of uranium enrichment, withdrawal of US combat forces from the region, and a comprehensive ceasefire that even binds Israel’s military actions in Lebanon and Gaza. Israel, notably absent from the talks, has long resisted such constraints, making this demand a potential dealbreaker.

Iran’s insistence on including Israel in the ceasefire is not just regional posturing. It reflects a core pillar of Tehran’s “axis of resistance” strategy—supporting allied groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. For Iran, peace with the US cannot be isolated from ending hostilities involving Israel. This poses a stark challenge for Trump, who must prove whether he can rein in his closest regional ally or risk the entire ceasefire collapsing under Israeli military activity.

The broader geopolitical stakes are high. Iran seems poised to leverage its strengthened position to rebuild economic relationships with Asian and European countries sidelined by US sanctions—an outcome Trump has hinted he might accept, claiming the US itself is less dependent on the strait’s oil. This shift would place economic pressure on America’s allies rather than on Washington.

Meanwhile, Trump’s failed military escalation has eroded US credibility. After costly, fruitless conflict, Washington’s threats ring hollow. The administration’s inability to dictate terms means any lasting agreement will require patience, compromise, and likely the involvement of other powers like China—qualities that do not align with Trump’s impulsive style.

In short, this ceasefire is less a breakthrough and more a precarious pause. Even if talks fall apart, a return to all-out war is not guaranteed—but neither is stability. Trump’s reckless gambit has weakened US influence and left the region on edge, with peace hanging by a thread. We will be watching closely as this dangerous game unfolds.