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 ongoing negotiations in Pakistan between the U.S. and Iran face a critical juncture. Both nations possess compelling motives to suspend hostilities, yet the talks remain fraught with challenges. A primary concern is the lack of mutual trust, starkly divergent objectives, and the recent intensification of Israel’s military actions against Lebanon. The U.S., under President Donald Trump, has already framed the conflict in past tense, signaling a desire to conclude the war swiftly. With upcoming state engagements, including a visit from King Charles and a summit with President Xi Jinping, as well as the approaching midterm elections, Trump’s administration seeks to align its strategic goals with domestic political needs.

As the summer months approach, the administration also aims to stabilize petrol prices, which have surged due to the war. Military conflicts and political agendas often clash, making this timing particularly delicate. Meanwhile, Iran’s regime, despite suffering extensive damage, remains resolute. Its ability to deploy missiles and drones persists, and social media campaigns continue to mock Trump through AI-generated videos. However, the economic toll has been severe, with cities paralyzed and infrastructure crippled. This necessitates a strategic pause to regroup, positioning the ceasefire talks as a vital opportunity to recalibrate influence.

Pakistani mediators, tasked with bridging the gap between the two delegations, navigate a complex landscape. The positions held by the U.S. and Iran are diametrically opposed, with Trump’s 15-point plan—leaked but not yet publicized—being perceived as more of a surrender outline than a negotiation foundation. Iran’s 10-point proposal, meanwhile, lists demands the U.S. has previously rejected. Establishing a lasting ceasefire depends on both sides agreeing to continue dialogue, even if they cannot reconcile their entrenched disagreements. In wartime, mere verbal agreements can appear as progress, but the absence of consensus on broader issues hints at a potential return to conflict.

A pressing issue complicates the talks: the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Blocking this waterway has granted Iran leverage over global oil markets, but securing its restoration is now central to the negotiations. The millions of civilians affected by the war remain hopeful that these discussions will mark the conflict’s end. Yet, the U.S. and Israel’s actions—particularly the strikes on Iran’s supreme leader on 28 February—initially fueled expectations of regime collapse. The attack, which claimed the lives of Ayatollah Ali Khamanei’s wife, family members, and others, was anticipated to destabilize Iran’s leadership, akin to the U.S. military’s capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife in January.

“A capital V military victory,” US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth remarked, underscoring the perceived triumph. However, the resilience of Iran’s leadership has defied such assumptions. Mojtaba Khamanei, the supreme leader’s son, remains missing since his appointment as successor, with rumors suggesting he sustained injuries in the assault. Despite these setbacks, Iran’s regime has shown remarkable endurance, challenging the notion of a decisive strategic win for the U.S. and its allies.

While the U.S. and Israel have weakened Iran’s military capabilities, the regime’s survival indicates that tactical successes have not yet translated into long-term geopolitical gains. The war, ignited by the strikes, continues to reshape Middle Eastern power dynamics. As its consequences unfold, this transformation will likely deepen, altering alliances and recalibrating regional ambitions. The road to a sustainable peace remains uncertain, but the talks in Pakistan represent a crucial step in this evolving process.