Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long

Bowen: Ceasefire offers civilians a temporary reprieve, yet its stability remains uncertain

Within a single day, Donald Trump transitioned from issuing dire warnings about Iran’s future to endorsing its ten-point proposal as a foundation for dialogue in Pakistan. The pause in hostilities, however, is primarily a momentary relief for civilians in the Middle East, who have endured relentless bombardment since the U.S. and Israel intensified their conflict with Iran on 28 February. Notably, Lebanon is excluded from this truce. Despite this, Israel proceeded to launch a significant and lethal aerial assault, signaling that the calm might not extend beyond its initial scope.

The United States and Iran both have compelling motivations to end the hostilities, yet their stated stances appear widely divergent. Two weeks remain for them to reach a consensus, even as mutual distrust persists. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance labeled the ceasefire a “fragile truce,” a cautiously realistic perspective. However, both parties simultaneously assert victories, with claims of triumph clashing in intensity.

“The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism proved utterly incapable of defending itself, its people or its territory,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon, framing the conflict as a “capital V military victory” for America.

“The world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun,” claimed Iran’s First Vice President Mohammed Reza Aref on social media, mirroring the U.S. narrative of triumph.

Trump’s backers argue that the severe damage inflicted on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces compelled it to seek negotiations. They see his aggressive rhetoric as a strategic move. Meanwhile, Iranian officials believe their endurance and ability to counter U.S. and Israeli actions, such as maintaining missile capabilities and controlling the Strait of Hormuz, have pressured America to concede to their terms.

The ten-point plan includes demands like recognizing Iran’s military dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, reparations, sanctions removal, and asset release. These conditions are as challenging for the U.S. as they are for Iran. The question remains: will the ceasefire in Pakistan lead to a sustainable agreement, or will it mirror the inconclusive talks in Geneva?

Before the conflict escalated on 28 February, international vessels could pass through the Strait of Hormuz unimpeded. Now, Iran asserts it will permit traffic during the ceasefire, provided coordination with its military. This arrangement could become a new leverage point, with potential tolls for shipping, akin to those at the Suez Canal. Israel’s absence from the ceasefire negotiations leaves its political opponents questioning the security risks, as Netanyahu’s strategy aims to weaken Iran further, even in an election year.

The war’s aftermath is already altering the regional landscape. While regime change in Iran was promised by both Trump and Netanyahu, the current ceasefire positions the country as a key negotiating partner rather than a fallen state. Domestic critics of the Iranian government, hoping for its collapse, may feel disillusioned by this outcome. The path forward hinges on whether Islamabad can bridge the gap between the U.S. and Iran, or if the cycle of conflict will repeat itself.