作者： admin

In a Wednesday announcement from the White House, U.S. Vice President JD Vance—who has maintained a low public profile through the U.S.-led war against Iran—will front a high-stakes U.S. negotiating delegation traveling to Islamabad, Pakistan on Friday to hash out the next steps for the newly announced U.S.-Iran ceasefire.

Vance will begin formal bilateral and mediation talks in the Pakistani capital Saturday, joined by two of former president Donald Trump’s close personal associates: Steve Witkoff, the administration’s special envoy for global peace initiatives, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a long-time informal advisor. Unlike Vance and Witkoff, Kushner holds no official position within the current U.S. administration, and both he and Witkoff have already faced public scrutiny over their handling of collapsed nuclear talks with Iran held in February, just days before the U.S. launched joint air strikes against the Islamic Republic alongside Israel.

Pakistan will lead mediation efforts for the talks, with the country’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar set to host negotiations. Iran’s delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as of this writing it remains unconfirmed whether Israel will send any official representative to the direct talks.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back against growing public speculation Wednesday that Vance had been sidelined from the Iran process due to his well-documented anti-interventionist stance, telling reporters that the vice president has held a central, key role in negotiations from their inception. “He is the president’s right-hand man. He is the vice president of the United States. He’s been involved in all of these discussions,” Leavitt said. Her remarks came one day after The New York Times reported Vance was the most vocal opponent of the Iran war among all Trump cabinet members. When the U.S. launched its opening wave of air strikes against Iran on February 28, Vance was notably absent from the secured situation room at Trump’s Florida resort where the president and senior advisors monitored strikes. Instead, official White House photos placed Vance in Washington D.C., alongside Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence and another prominent anti-intervention voice within the administration.

The new round of in-person talks comes just 48 hours after Trump announced a two-week bilateral ceasefire agreement with Iran that includes a commitment to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for global oil supplies. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has formally confirmed the ceasefire, framing the agreement as a major strategic victory for Tehran and confirming the truce covers active coflicts across Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen—one of Iran’s core non-negotiable demands.

But the fragile truce is already facing serious strain just days after it was signed. While Israel has publicly stated it supports Trump’s ceasefire announcement, Israeli officials have insisted the truce does not extend to Lebanon. Pakistan, the lead mediator for the talks, disputes this claim, asserting the ceasefire does cover Lebanese hostilities.

On Wednesday, that contradiction boiled over into violence: Israel launched a massive barrage of missile strikes across Beirut that killed at least 254 people, marking the deadliest single day of violence in the region since the peak of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians since October 2023. Leavitt confirmed Wednesday that the U.S. accepts Israel’s position that Lebanon is excluded from the ceasefire, adding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had reassured Trump of his ongoing partnership with the administration. When pressed on whether Israel’s escalated attacks in Lebanon undermine the broader ceasefire with Iran, Leavitt only said the issue would continue to be discussed between Trump and Netanyahu.

Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group that had observed a November 2024 ceasefire with Israel that Israel has violated thousands of times, resumed rocket attacks against Israel last month after Israel assassinated Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel has since launched a full ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

Iran has warned that the escalating attacks on Hezbollah could force it to abandon the ceasefire terms. On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps released a statement carried by Iran’s Mehr News Agency saying, “aggression against the proud Hezbollah is aggression against Iran, and that the battlefield is preparing a heavy response to the Israeli regime’s savage crimes.” By late Wednesday local time, multiple unconfirmed reports of new air strikes targeting Iranian territory emerged, stoking fears that the entire truce could collapse entirely.

On the Strait of Hormuz, Leavitt reaffirmed Wednesday that Trump is demanding the waterway reopen immediately without restrictions, a core precondition of the ceasefire the U.S. accepted Tuesday. She added that shipping traffic through the strait had already seen an uptick on Wednesday, a claim partially corroborated by data from MarineTraffic tracking tool, though the outlet confirmed any observed increase in vessel movement remains minimal.

A key provision of the 10-point ceasefire framework calls for Iran to impose a $2 million transit fee on every commercial vessel passing through the strait, with proceeds to be split between Iran and neighboring Oman. Oman has already publicly rejected the fee provision, stating it will not collect any such charges. The agreement allocates all collected fees to the reconstruction of critical Iranian infrastructure destroyed during the war. Still, amid the escalating violence in Lebanon, Iranian officials have confirmed they are now weighing reimposing full shipping restrictions along the waterway.

During Wednesday’s press briefing, Leavitt also reaffirmed the administration’s core nuclear policy, stating that Iran no longer retains the capability to produce nuclear weapons—a claim the administration first made last year, despite the fact that the Iranian nuclear program was cited as the primary justification for launching the war in February. When pressed on whether the U.S. will still seize Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, a top Trump administration priority, Leavitt confirmed the issue remains at the top of the negotiating team’s agenda for the Islamabad talks. “That is a red line that the president is not going to back away from, and he’s committed to ensuring that takes place. We hope it will be through diplomacy,” she said. When reporters asked if Iran had signaled it would agree to hand over the enriched material, Leavitt confirmed Tehran had given such indication. Iran continues to maintain it retains the legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful civilian purposes.

A newly brokered two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran has triggered deep partisan division among U.S. lawmakers, while already facing imminent collapse just hours after it was signed, following fresh outbreaks of deadly violence across the Middle East.

The ceasefire, finalized Tuesday through Pakistani mediation after Washington extended its military deadline, has split congressional Republicans between cautious backing and open skepticism, with Democrats uniformly condemning the framework as a humiliating strategic defeat for the U.S. Even among supporters of President Donald Trump, there is sharp disagreement over the terms of the proposed permanent peace deal Iran has circulated.

Top Republican ally Senator Lindsey Graham, an early backer of the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, struck a wary tone in remarks posted to X. While he framed a diplomatic end to hostilities as the ideal outcome, he flagged serious concerns about the emerging negotiating text. Graham insisted that any final agreement must require full U.S. control over all of Iran’s approximately 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium, which must be removed from Iranian territory to block Tehran from developing a dirty bomb or resuming large-scale enrichment programs. His tough conditions cast significant doubt over the prospects for the next round of direct talks scheduled to open Friday in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Tehran’s proposed 10-point framework for a lasting peace formalizes two key Iranian demands: full national sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, and continued domestic uranium enrichment. Despite these terms aligned against long-standing U.S. and Israeli policy, Trump has publicly called the plan “workable.” Some senior Republicans have echoed the president’s cautious optimism: Senator Rick Scott hailed the ceasefire as “excellent news” that demonstrates the success of Trump’s “peace through strength” approach, contrasting it with what he called ineffective, weak appeasement policies of past administrations.

But even as most congressional Republicans have aligned with Trump’s position, conservative commentators close to the president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have lambasted the deal as a catastrophic failure. Syndicated radio host and Fox News personality Mark Levin, a vocal war supporter and Netanyahu ally, wrote on X that the 10-point plan is “an absolute disaster,” arguing that the U.S. unjustly cut Israel out of the negotiating process entirely.

In a striking ideological overlap, Democratic lawmakers largely echoed Levin’s criticism, framing the ceasefire as a landmark blunder that cements a clear Iranian victory. Senator Chris Murphy, an early public opponent of the U.S. war on Iran, argued that Tehran’s eagerness to accept the ceasefire made its one-sided terms clear. “They will control and toll the Strait for the first time. They keep their nuclear program. They keep their missiles. What a disaster,” Murphy wrote on X.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a typically staunch supporter of Israeli security, joined the criticism, echoing calls to pass a War Powers Resolution to curtail Trump’s authority to wage unauthorized war against Iran. The resolution failed on the Senate floor last month, blocked by nearly unified Republican opposition. Schumer slammed Trump as “a military moron,” noting that the months-long war has already cost U.S. taxpayers $44 billion and pushed domestic gasoline prices above $4 per gallon, leaving the U.S. far less secure than before the conflict began. “If he restarts this war, we will be in even worse shape. We must pass our War Powers Resolution to end this war for good,” Schumer added.

Even as the political battle rages in Washington, the ceasefire has already been thrown into severe doubt by coordinated attacks across the region that began within 24 hours of the deal being signed. On Wednesday, Iran announced that one of its key oil refineries on Lavan Island had been hit in an “enemy attack,” and Tehran responded with large-scale missile and drone strikes against Gulf Arab states that it accuses of supporting the U.S.-Israeli war effort. The United Arab Emirates confirmed it was targeted by 17 ballistic missiles and 35 drones, while Qatar reported seven ballistic missile strikes and a number of drone attacks. The Financial Times also reported that a critical pumping station on Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline — which enables millions of barrels of oil to bypass the Strait of Hormuz for export via the Red Sea — was also hit in the coordinated strikes.

The most severe escalation came from Israel, which launched its deadliest round of airstrikes on Lebanon since the start of the wider war, hitting densely populated central Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. Lebanon’s Ministry of Health reported that at least 112 people were killed in the strikes, with more than 800 others wounded. A spokesperson for Netanyahu’s office immediately clarified that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire “does not include Lebanon,” a direct contradiction of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s statement that all parties had agreed to an immediate ceasefire across all theaters, including Lebanese territory.

The Israeli escalation has already jeopardized the upcoming Islamabad peace talks. The Wall Street Journal reported that Iranian officials have informed mediators that Tehran will refuse to participate in Friday’s scheduled negotiations if Israeli attacks on Lebanon continue.

Ceasefires are widely framed as moments of respite: temporary halts to violence that create space for diplomatic dialogue. But in some cases, these pauses reveal a far more consequential truth: which side has actually emerged with the upper hand from a conflict. The newly negotiated ceasefire between the United States, Israel, and Iran appears to be one of these pivotal moments.

On the surface, every party involved is publicly claiming victory. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has hailed the agreement as a “total and complete victory,” positioning it as proof that Washington achieved all its core strategic objectives. For its part, Iran’s leadership has characterized the ceasefire as a major strategic win, with the country’s Supreme National Security Council formally approving the deal on the condition that all offensive operations end.

Beneath these competing public narratives, however, lies a deeper reality: the terms and framework of the ceasefire indicate that Iran has left the conflict not weakened, but significantly strengthened. Even after the assassination of much of the country’s senior leadership during the hostilities, the regime’s ability to quickly appoint replacements and maintain internal institutional cohesion demonstrates resilience, not imminent collapse.

Crucially, this ceasefire was not imposed on Iran after a decisive military defeat. It was negotiated, and its core parameters were shaped by Iran’s own conditions, with tangible gains for Tehran. Tehran’s ten-point proposal served as the opening framework for talks, rather than a pre-drafted agreement forced on Iran from outside. Iran’s demands extend far beyond ending active hostilities. They include targeted sanctions relief, access to billions of dollars in frozen overseas assets, international support for post-conflict reconstruction, and continued Iranian influence over the Strait of Hormuz. The proposal also calls for a full withdrawal of U.S. military presence from the Middle East and an end to Israeli offensive operations in Lebanon.

The Strait of Hormuz, the vital chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s global oil supplies transit, has been reopened under Iranian oversight — a clear signal of where strategic leverage now resides in the region. Control over the strait is not just a strategic military advantage; it is a major economic asset. Reports indicate Iran has proposed continuing to collect transit fees that it implemented during the conflict, creating a steady new revenue stream at exactly the moment the country requires funding for post-war reconstruction.

In practice, a conflict that saw sustained bombing targeting Iranian infrastructure may now leave Tehran with new financial tools to rebuild and potentially expand its regional influence. This paradoxical outcome is not unprecedented: military offensives are designed to erode an adversary’s operational capabilities, but when they fail to deliver a decisive political victory, they often open new pathways for the targeted state to gain power. Iran entered this conflict already hardened by decades of pressure. Years of sweeping international sanctions forced the regime to build systemic resilience by diversifying economic and political networks, strengthening core state institutions, and developing asymmetric military and strategic strategies.

Far from breaking this system, the war has accelerated its evolution. Instead of collapsing, Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt global energy markets, absorb sustained large-scale military strikes, and force major powers to negotiate on terms that include significant economic concessions.

This is where the disconnect in U.S. public messaging becomes most apparent. While Trump has framed the ceasefire as a total victory, a key detail tells a different story: though the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (Trump’s central public demand in recent weeks) is part of the deal, ongoing negotiations will be built around Iran’s ten-point framework, not the original U.S. 15-point plan that centered on dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. This shift is a clear indicator that Washington was seeking a quick exit from escalating conflict.

For Iran, meanwhile, the leadership has held a consistent line: it will reject temporary arrangements unless they deliver permanent structural changes, including sanctions relief and formal security guarantees. For Washington, the ceasefire halts dangerous escalation and calms volatile global energy markets. For Tehran, it locks in the strategic leverage gained from its control of the Strait of Hormuz. This asymmetric outcome means the ceasefire is not a neutral pause in fighting; it is a turning point that could cement a major shift in regional power dynamics.

The most impactful dimension of this shift is economic. The war sent shockwaves through global commodity markets, with oil prices swinging sharply in response to supply disruptions. But the ceasefire introduces a new, Iran-friendly dynamic: if sanctions are eased as negotiated, Iran will regain access to global energy markets at a time of sustained global demand. Combined with potential new transit revenues from the Strait of Hormuz and international reconstruction funding, this creates the conditions for a meaningful Iranian economic rebound. In the end, the war risks delivering the exact opposite of its intended outcome: instead of weakening Iran economically, it may have significantly strengthened the country’s position.

This outcome raises a larger, foundational question: what does this ceasefire reveal about the nature of global power in the 21st century? For decades, U.S. influence in the Middle East has been built on unchallenged military dominance and coercive economic pressure. This conflict demonstrates that both pillars of U.S. power are now under significant strain.
Militarily, the U.S. and Israel have demonstrated overwhelming conventional military capability, yet failed to achieve a decisive outcome that would eliminate Iran’s core power. Iran has retained all its core strategic capacities, maintained internal cohesion, and leveraged its geographic and economic position to shape the terms of de-escalation.

At the same time, the international legitimacy of the U.S. and Israel has eroded considerably. The contested justifications for the war, the high civilian death toll, and the lack of broad international support have weakened both countries’ global standing, even among their traditional closest allies. U.S. soft power, a longstanding cornerstone of its global leadership, has been further diminished. Trump’s increasingly inflammatory and abusive social media posts have alienated even Washington’s closest partners, the majority of whom remained publicly silent in the face of U.S. threats to escalate the conflict.

Economically, Iran’s proven ability to influence, and potentially monetize, global energy flows gives it a form of structural power that military force alone can never neutralize. The result is this striking paradox: a war launched to contain Iranian power has instead reinforced and expanded it.

It remains early days for this ceasefire. Agreements can collapse, negotiations can stall, and open conflict can reignite at any time. But if the deal holds, even temporarily, it marks a critical turning point in global geopolitics. This is not because it ends the long-running conflict between Iran and the U.S.-Israeli bloc; it is because it reveals a new reality of how modern wars are won and lost. Victory today is no longer defined solely by battlefield dominance. It is determined by outcomes that are economically sustainable, politically legitimate, and strategically durable.

Measured by these new metrics, Iran is clearly well positioned to emerge as the ultimate winner of this conflict. The U.S. and Israel may have demonstrated conventional military superiority, but Iran has demonstrated a far more consequential capacity: the ability to endure external pressure, adapt to hostile conditions, and convert that pressure into tangible strategic leverage.

That is why this ceasefire matters far beyond the end of one phase of conflict. It marks the moment when a war designed to weaken Iran instead left it stronger, while simultaneously exposing the fundamental limits of the hard power used by the alliance that sought to contain it. This analysis comes from Bamo Nouri, an honorary research fellow in the Department of International Politics at City St George’s, University of London, and Inderjeet Parmar, a professor of international politics at the same institution.