Doha: The two-week ceasefire announced late Tuesday between the United States and Iran, with Pakistan acting as the mediator, marks the most significant diplomatic development since the war began on February 28. This temporary pause in hostilities, although fragile, offers a potential pathway towards de-escalation of the conflict that has affected multiple nations.
According to Anadolu Agency, the ceasefire is viewed differently by the involved parties. For Washington, it serves as a strategic opportunity to convert military success into political leverage. After extensive military operations that severely impacted Iran’s crucial infrastructure, the United States, led by President Trump, was facing a diminishing number of high-value targets, prompting a shift in focus to broader infrastructure elements. Pakistan’s mediation provided a timely de-escalation option for Trump, without pushing the limits of military engagement.
Tehran, on the other hand, sees the ceasefire as a vital necessity due to the extensive damage it has suffered. Despite its retaliatory capabilities, Iran struggled to prevent further escalation or significant damage to its infrastructure, particularly its electrical grid and transportation systems. By routing the ceasefire announcement through Araghchi and the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), rather than directly through the IRGC or the Supreme Leader, Iran maintained political flexibility and avoided the appearance of capitulation.
For Israel, the ceasefire represents an unwelcome constraint, despite being outwardly presented as cooperation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to halt strikes on Iran but clarified that the ceasefire does not extend to Lebanon, where Israeli military operations continue. This poses a significant risk to the ceasefire’s stability, as Israel is likely to test its boundaries.
Pakistan’s role in brokering the ceasefire is seen as a diplomatic triumph. As a Sunni-majority nuclear power with established communication channels with Tehran and a leadership trusted by President Trump, Pakistan emerged as a suitable mediator. Its involvement represents a significant moment in its foreign policy history.
The Gulf States view the ceasefire with a mix of relief and anxiety. While it temporarily prevents an energy crisis, the lack of consultation with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states during the ceasefire negotiations raises concerns about the security implications of agreements made without their input.
The future of the ceasefire remains uncertain. It is unlikely to evolve into a comprehensive agreement within the two-week timeframe. The significant gaps between proposed plans, Israel’s non-participation, and the potential for political disruption from hardline factions in Iran, Israel, and the United States pose challenges. However, none of the primary parties appear eager to trigger a resumption of hostilities, with each having vested interests in maintaining the current pause.
Ultimately, the durability of the ceasefire will depend on whether diplomatic efforts can bring Israel into the agreement framework, involve Gulf States meaningfully, and allow Iran to fulfill its obligations without appearing to capitulate. These conditions, while challenging, are not unattainable.