Trump Secured a Ceasefire With Iran. Will It Last?

Trump’s Truth Social post announcing the ceasefire suggested that getting to a lasting peace agreement will not be much more than a formality:

“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two-week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated.”

Trump certainly portrayed the ceasefire as a decisive U.S. triumph. He told reporters for AFP that the United States had won a “total and complete victory. 100 percent. No question about it.” He was explicit that the final deal will end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. “That will be perfectly taken care of,” he told the reporters, “or I wouldn’t have settled.”

This declaration of victory is likely premature. Trump agreed to Friday’s talks on the basis of Iran’s recent ten-point peace plan, which he called a “workable basis on which to negotiate.” On Monday, however, Trump dismissed that same plan as a “significant step” but “not good enough.”

Trump initially objected to the Iranian proposal for good reason. Among other things, Tehran insists on the right to enrich uranium, the lifting of all economic sanctions, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, and, most notably, recognition of its control of the Strait of Hormuz. Missing from the Iranian plan is any offer to limit its missile and drone capabilities.

All of these demands cross longstanding U.S. red lines. Agreeing to them would require Trump to make major concessions that will be difficult to square with his self-declared war aim, namely, eliminating Iran’s ability to threaten its neighbors and the United States.

The future of the Strait of Hormuz will be a particular sticking point. Any recognition of Iran’s right to control traffic through the strait, which was open until Operation Epic Fury began, will be a strategic defeat for the United States. The burden of the tolls that Iran has begun imposing on vessels transiting the strait falls heavily on U.S. allies. Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, and Baghdad could hardly be happy with this practice becoming permanent. Trump’s proposal this morning that the United States join Iran in a “joint venture” to charge tolls only adds to their anger.

Of course, the planned talks may never get started or be derailed by events. Vice President JD Vance, who is expected to lead the U.S. delegation in Islamabad, rightly called the ceasefire a “fragile truce.” The first hours after the ceasefire began saw confusion over what had been agreed to. Trump said the ceasefire was predicated on Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz. However, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, who helped broker the deal, said it was “effective immediately,” and Iranian Foreign Minister Sayed Abbas Araghchi tweeted that “safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s armed forces and with due consideration technical limitations.”

Meanwhile, one unnamed White House official told the New York Times that the terms Trump agreed to as the basis for Friday’s negotiations differed materially from the plan Iran has made public. Left unexplained was why Tehran would publicly insist on demands it has already abandoned.

There is also confusion about whether and how Israel is bound by the ceasefire. Sharif said it applies to Israeli attacks on Iran and in “Lebanon and elsewhere.” Israel, which was not a direct party to the ceasefire discussions, denied that the ceasefire applies to Lebanon, a position the White House endorsed this afternoon. The Israeli Air Force has continued to attack Hezbollah targets, apparently prompting Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz once again. At the same time, Gulf countries report that Iran continues to strike their territory.

So the odds are stacked against a quick and easy negotiation. Any settlement to the war will require one or both sides to make concessions they have long insisted are unacceptable. The risk of a resumed, and possibly expanded, conflict remains. But as Winston Churchill once said, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.