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

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

Within a single day, Donald Trump shifted from issuing threats against Iran’s civilization, declaring it would “die tonight,” to endorsing Iran’s ten-point plan as a “workable” foundation for dialogue in Pakistan. This pause in hostilities, however, is primarily a temporary reprieve for civilian populations in the Middle East, who have endured continuous bombardment since the U.S. and Israel launched their campaign against Iran on February 28. Lebanon’s residents, though, are not included in this truce, as Israel explicitly stated it would not extend to them. Following this declaration, the nation unleashed a significant and lethal series of air strikes, targeting the region with renewed intensity.

While the ceasefire provides a momentary calm, its sustainability remains uncertain. Both Iran and the United States have compelling motivations to conclude the conflict, yet their public stances appear starkly divergent. The U.S. vice-president, J.D. Vance, characterized the agreement as a “fragile truce,” a cautiously measured view. However, claims of triumph from both sides are equally fervent. At the Pentagon, U.S. defense secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that the operation marked a “capital V military victory,” calling it “historic and overwhelming.” He claimed the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism proved utterly incapable of defending itself, its people or its territory.”

“The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism proved utterly incapable of defending itself, its people or its territory,” said Pete Hegseth.

Meanwhile, in Tehran, the regime is also celebrating a sweeping triumph. First vice-president Mohammed Reza Aref shared on social media that “the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun.” Trump’s allies argue that the severe damage inflicted on Iran by the U.S. and Israel compelled it to engage in negotiations. They frame his rhetoric as a calculated move to secure favorable terms. Conversely, Iranians believe their ability to withstand U.S. and Israeli pressures—despite losing territory and lives—has forced America to negotiate on Iran’s terms.

The ten-point plan, which forms the basis of talks, includes demands that challenge American priorities. These include Iran’s claim to control the Strait of Hormuz, reparations for losses, sanctions relief, and the release of frozen assets. The war’s impact has already begun reshaping the Middle East, even as the ceasefire temporarily halts violence. Initially, Trump and Netanyahu had vowed to bring about regime change in Iran, but this goal has not materialized, despite the president’s attempts to portray the killing of Iranian leaders as the beginning of a new era.

Opponents within Iran who once anticipated the collapse of the regime may feel disillusioned. A government that the U.S. and Israel claimed was on the brink of falling is now a key player in peace talks. The negotiations in Islamabad, like those in Geneva, face the same challenges. While the Geneva discussions centered on nuclear agreements and Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, the Strait of Hormuz remains a critical issue in Islamabad. Iran now leverages its control over the strait as a new deterrent, capable of disrupting global trade if hostilities resume.

Before the conflict began, international shipping could pass through the strait without hindrance. Now, Iran insists ships must coordinate with its military during the ceasefire, a condition it aims to maintain. The U.S. and Israel’s absence from the ceasefire diplomacy has further complicated matters. Netanyahu sought to escalate the war, even as political rivals in Israel, including Yair Lapid, criticized him for risking the nation’s security. Their concerns are heightened by the possibility that military successes may not translate into lasting stability.