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

Bowen: Ceasefire offers temporary relief for civilians, but stability may be short-lived

Within a single day, Donald Trump transitioned from warning that Iran’s civilization would “die tonight” to endorsing the country’s ten-point plan as a viable framework for talks in Pakistan. The pause in hostilities, however, provides only a brief reprieve for civilians across the Middle East who have endured relentless bombardment since the U.S. and Israel launched their campaign against Iran on 28 February. Notably, Lebanon is excluded from this truce, as Israel swiftly resumed its assault, dismissing the ceasefire’s relevance to its southern neighbor.

The Ceasefire’s Impact

Civilians in the region have suffered under sustained aerial attacks, with the ceasefire offering a momentary halt to the violence. Yet, the temporary calm may not endure. Both Iran and the United States have compelling reasons to end the conflict, but their stated positions remain far apart. The next two weeks will test their ability to reach a lasting agreement, despite mutual distrust.

Conflicting Claims of Victory

Amid the turmoil, U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance labeled the ceasefire a “fragile truce,” a pragmatic view. However, both sides have made bold assertions of triumph. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed it was a “capital V military victory,” insisting Iran’s inability to defend itself marked a historic defeat. In Tehran, First Vice President Mohammed Reza Aref proclaimed on social media that “the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun.”

The U.S. and its allies argue that the severe damage inflicted on Iran compelled it to negotiate. Trump’s rhetoric, they claim, served as a decisive strategy to push the Islamic Republic toward compromise. Conversely, Iran insists its endurance and continued capability to strike targets, including control over the Strait of Hormuz, have pressured the U.S. into accepting its terms.

The Ten-Point Plan and Its Challenges

Iran’s proposal includes demands that may challenge American interests. These include acknowledgment of Iran’s military dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, reparations for wartime losses, sanctions relief, and the release of frozen assets. While the U.S. sees these as negotiable, they could prove as difficult for Iran to concede as they are for Washington to accept.

Netanyahu, Israel’s leader, initially aimed to dismantle Iran’s regime, but his actions have drawn criticism. In an election year, opponents like Yair Lapid accuse him of weakening Israel’s security posture. The war, though not toppling the Iranian government, has shifted its dynamics, leaving internal dissenters unimpressed by the current stalemate. Iran now positions itself as a key player in the talks, seeking to solidify its influence.

Uncertainty Over the Islamabad Talks

Whether the ceasefire will lead to a sustainable peace remains unclear. The discussions in Pakistan, like those in Geneva, are set against a backdrop of shifting priorities. While Geneva focused on nuclear agreements and Iran’s uranium stockpile, the Strait of Hormuz will take center stage in Islamabad. Iran’s ability to block maritime routes could trigger global economic repercussions if tensions escalate again.

With Israel absent from the diplomatic process, the country’s role in the conflict is now in question. The ceasefire, though a tactical move, may not resolve the deeper tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The outcome of these negotiations will determine whether the Middle East emerges from this crisis with lasting peace or renewed instability.