The Surprising Winner of a Possible Iran Ceasefire
News Desk
Tehran:The military campaign launched by the United States and Israel against Iran was intended to weaken the Islamic Republic, but recent diplomatic developments suggest the parties may be moving toward an interim agreement that would allow Tehran to avoid complete collapse despite suffering significant military, economic and industrial losses.
According to a report by Reuters, sources familiar with ongoing negotiations say the outlines of a potential agreement have begun to emerge. Under the proposed framework, Iran’s economy and military-industrial infrastructure would sustain severe damage, while the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could ultimately become even stronger.
Diplomats, government officials and regional analysts caution that any agreement reached in the near term is unlikely to evolve into a permanent peace settlement. Instead, it is expected to function primarily as a temporary ceasefire designed to halt further escalation while leaving the most contentious issues unresolved.
The proposed arrangement seeks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, reduce volatility in global financial markets, ease economic pressure on Iran and provide US President Donald Trump with a politically acceptable path forward. More complex disputes would be deferred to a later phase of negotiations.
Former US diplomat Dennis Ross said the conflict has produced significant military achievements but few lasting strategic gains.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/rubio-says-war-over-as-gulf-hostilities-flare-again/
“There have been important military successes, but no fundamental strategic issues have been resolved,” Ross said.
Following the start of US and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, President Trump stated that the campaign was intended to eliminate immediate threats posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. He also called on the Iranian people to take greater control of their country’s future.
Under the agreement currently under discussion, Iran would end its effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for economic relief, potentially including access to frozen Iranian assets and limited sanctions relief.
Iranian officials reportedly view such a deal as a means of buying time, securing financial resources and reducing internal pressures caused by a struggling economy while avoiding difficult political and security concessions.
For President Trump, a deal reached before November’s midterm elections could be presented as a major achievement, particularly if it includes commitments related to Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which Western powers say could be used in the development of nuclear weapons.
However, Reuters noted that the fundamental causes of the conflict remain largely unchanged. Iran continues to reject demands to abandon uranium enrichment, Washington remains unwilling to offer formal security guarantees, and Israel still regards Iran as an existential threat.
Iranian leaders also maintain that the country must preserve its missile capabilities, regional alliance network and ability to disrupt Gulf energy supplies as deterrents against future attacks.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/israel-lebanon-ceasefire-sparks-hope-for-iran-deal/
“There is very little overlap between what Trump wants politically and what Iran is prepared to concede,” said former US diplomat and Iran specialist Alan Eyre. According to him, the current strategy appears focused on securing a quick agreement while postponing the most difficult issues to a second phase that may never materialize.
Two sources familiar with the talks told Reuters that President Trump is likely to seek a limited outcome consisting of a short-term ceasefire, a broadly worded commitment regarding highly enriched uranium and an arrangement acknowledging Iran’s de facto influence over the Strait of Hormuz.
Regional analysts argue that even if shipping lanes are fully reopened, Iran will continue to retain practical control over the strategic waterway regardless of the final transit arrangements.
Reports also suggest Washington has reduced its emphasis on dismantling Iran’s ballistic missile program, despite concerns from both Israel and Gulf Arab states.
Several major obstacles remain. Iran insists that any agreement must be linked to an end to Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, while Trump seeks to maintain political leverage by keeping negotiations focused on Iran’s nuclear activities.
Although Trump has publicly denied a direct connection between the issues, analysts note that his administration has effectively linked developments in Lebanon with negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz. This reportedly explains Washington’s pressure on Israel to limit attacks on Beirut and its southern suburbs in order to prevent regional escalation from undermining diplomacy.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/trump-says-iran-deal-could-be-reached-within-a-week/
According to sources cited by Reuters, Iran considers the immediate release of approximately $12 billion in frozen assets to be a core requirement of any agreement and is unlikely to move forward without substantial financial concessions.
David Schenker of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said that while Trump seeks to avoid comparisons with the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under former President Barack Obama, any decision to release frozen Iranian funds could invite similar criticism.
“There is no easy way around that political challenge,” Schenker said.
Analysts believe that if a temporary ceasefire is achieved, one of its principal beneficiaries could be the Revolutionary Guards. Schenker argued that the IRGC has evolved from being the power behind the Iranian system to becoming the dominant power within it.
Experts also note that any interim agreement is unlikely to fully satisfy Israel. Iranian leaders continue to frame their confrontation with Israel in ideological terms and have repeatedly signaled that no diplomatic arrangement can resolve the underlying hostility between the two countries.
According to Dennis Ross, the conflict remains fundamentally rooted in the enduring security and strategic rivalry between Israel and Iran, making any ceasefire only a temporary pause rather than a lasting resolution.
