Ceasefire or no ceasefire, the Middle East’s reshuffling is not yet done

Ceasefire or no ceasefire, the Middle East’s reshuffling is not yet done

The U.S. and Iran’s potential ceasefire discussions in Pakistan rest on their mutual desire to halt the ongoing conflict. However, achieving this remains challenging due to deep-seated distrust, divergent priorities, and the continued escalation of hostilities by Israel, America’s key ally in the war. Recent strikes have intensified tensions, with the U.S. already framing the war in past tense, signaling a need for a strategic exit.

America’s Timeline and Trump’s Ambitions

President Donald Trump’s approach to the conflict is shaped by upcoming events. A state visit from King Charles is scheduled for later this month, followed by a summit with President Xi Jinping in May. Midterm elections in November further pressure his administration to stabilize the situation. With summer approaching, Trump also seeks to lower petrol prices to levels seen before the war began, as ongoing military actions threaten to disrupt this timeline.

“A capital V military victory,” as U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described, is the goal Trump envisions for the conflict.

Iran, meanwhile, maintains its stance despite suffering significant losses. The regime remains defiant, capable of deploying missiles and drones, and its social media presence continues to challenge U.S. leaders through AI-generated videos. Yet, cities across the country face economic paralysis, and the nation requires time to recover. The ceasefire talks offer an opportunity to consolidate its position.

The Challenge of Contradictory Positions

Mediators in Pakistan face a daunting task, as the two sides’ declared stances are starkly opposed. Trump’s 15-point plan, though unpublished, is alleged to resemble a surrender document rather than a negotiation framework. Iran’s 10-point proposal lists demands previously rejected by the U.S. For a lasting ceasefire, both parties must agree to continue dialogue even without resolving their fundamental disagreements.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a critical issue in these talks. The narrow passage, vital for global shipping, has been blockaded, giving Iran leverage over the world economy. Maintaining this closure has proven advantageous, but its restoration is now central to the negotiations. The millions of civilians impacted by the war hope these talks will mark the conflict’s end.

Despite the initial optimism following the war’s outbreak on February 28, when the U.S. and Israel launched strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader, his wife, and other family members, the regime has shown remarkable resilience. The assumption that his death would lead to collapse has been proven wrong, with his son Mojtaba still absent since succeeding him. Speculation suggests he may have been injured in the attack, which also reportedly claimed the lives of his sister and another son.

While the U.S. and Israel have inflicted heavy damage on Iran’s military and infrastructure, regime change has not materialized. Iran remains intact, capable of launching strikes and continuing its strategic defiance. This means that, despite tactical successes, the U.S. has yet to secure a lasting geopolitical advantage. The conflict’s broader implications will continue to reshape the Middle East for the foreseeable future.