标签： Asia

Just hours after US President Donald Trump issued a stark threat to erase Iranian civilization, a startling diplomatic reversal has upended tensions in the Middle East: Trump has announced his acceptance of a two-week ceasefire with Iran, built on the framework of a 10-point peace proposal put forward by the Islamic Republic. The US leader has characterized the Iranian plan as a “workable basis” for future negotiations, with key terms including a proposed fee for commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz and the full lifting of all international and US sanctions imposed on Iran.

Notably, discrepancies have emerged between the Persian-language version of the plan released for Iranian audiences and the English-language version distributed to global media, with several high-demand provisions absent from the international iteration. Even as the final outcome of upcoming weeks of negotiations remains deeply uncertain, the tentative agreement already marks a dramatic turnaround for the United States, which joined Israel in a large-scale military offensive against Iran in late February, framed at the time by official rhetoric focused on overthrowing the existing Islamic Republic government.

The proposal has already sparked furious backlash in Israel, where political leaders have decried the terms as an unprecedented national failure. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has labeled the deal the worst “political disaster in all of [Israel’s] history”, with particular outrage directed at the clause calling for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon and an end to all Israeli military strikes on the country.

Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, an Iran historian and lecturer at the University of St Andrews, told Middle East Eye that an initial review of the 10-point framework places it far beyond the scope of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the nuclear deal that Trump unilaterally withdrew from in 2018 — “in almost every dimension”. Unlike the JCPOA, which was strictly limited to nuclear restrictions in exchange for partial, reversible sanctions relief, Sadeghi-Boroujerdi argues this new proposal is far more ambitious: “It is not a nuclear deal. It is a comprehensive restructuring of the regional order in Iran’s favour.”

As global powers react to the news with a mix of cautious relief and deep skepticism, a breakdown of the plan’s core provisions reveals just how far-reaching its implications would be if fully implemented.

For the Trump administration and the global economy, the most urgent priority has been reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s global oil supplies pass. The waterway was effectively closed shortly after the US-Israel military campaign began, triggering massive disruption to energy markets and inflicting widespread damage on the global economy. The de facto closure spurred intense diplomatic pressure on all sides and even preliminary military planning to force the strait open, making its reopening a non-negotiable starting point for any talks.

Trump’s conditional ceasefire agreement calls for the strait to be reopened immediately, but the full 10-point plan goes a step further. Under the proposal, Iran would charge a $2 million transit fee for every vessel passing through the waterway, with proceeds split between Iran and neighboring Oman. All funds collected would be allocated to the reconstruction of Iranian infrastructure, much of which has been destroyed by US and Israeli strikes since the offensive began in February. Iran would also take full responsibility for establishing and enforcing rules for safe passage through the strait. If approved, this arrangement would cement the strait as a critical strategic lever for Iran, dramatically strengthening its regional influence over global energy supplies.

A core demand at the heart of Iran’s proposal is the full lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions imposed on the country. This marks a stark reversal of the policy Trump implemented after his 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA: at the time, Trump scrapped the nuclear accord, calling it a bad deal, and implemented a harsh “maximum pressure” campaign of sweeping sanctions that crippled Iran’s economy, pushed millions of Iranian citizens into poverty, and inadvertently empowered hardline factions through a booming black market for restricted goods.

US sanctions have been in place in one form or another since 1987, ahead of the end of the Iran-Iraq War. A full removal would therefore represent the most significant shift in US-Iran relations in nearly four decades.

Another non-negotiable pillar for Iran is a binding international guarantee that neither the country nor its regional allied groups will face future military attacks. Iranian leaders have long cited Trump’s well-documented unpredictability as a reason to distrust his public commitments, so a permanent security guarantee is central to any long-term peace deal. While the plan does not explicitly name Israel in the text, analysts widely agree the guarantee is intended to cover Israeli strikes as well — a provision that is almost certain to continue fueling Israeli opposition to the plan.

The proposal also calls for the full withdrawal of all US military forces from “the region” — a vague wording that has sparked debate over its actual scope. The US has maintained a widespread military presence across the Middle East for decades, with many regional allied governments relying on US forces as a core guarantee of their own national security. The version of the plan released to Iranian media references forces deployed specifically to the region near Iran since February’s offensive, but a full withdrawal of all US forces from the entire Middle East would represent an unprecedented change to the regional order that many allied states would oppose heavily. Even after recent Iranian strikes on US assets in the Persian Gulf that have sparked renewed debate over the wisdom of maintaining a forward US presence, a full exit remains a highly contentious outcome.

A further provision calling for an end to all military attacks on Iran’s regional allied groups, broadly referred to as the Axis of Resistance, has added to Israeli anger. The grouping includes Hamas, the Gaza-based political and armed movement, and Hezbollah, the Lebanese political and military organization. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already publicly rejected the ceasefire call, confirming he has no intention of halting Israel’s ongoing offensive in Lebanon, and Israeli leaders have repeatedly ruled out ending targeted strikes on Hamas.

Two key provisions included in the Persian-language version of the plan are noticeably absent from the English-language version released to international media: the right of Iran to continue domestic nuclear enrichment, and a demand for war reparations from the United States. According to US-based Iranian human rights group HRANA, the US-Israel offensive has killed more than 3,500 Iranians to date, 1,616 of whom are civilians including at least 244 children. Reparations for the widespread destruction and loss of life would be an extremely popular demand among the Iranian public, but the omission from the English text leaves the status of both provisions unclear ahead of negotiations.

Sadeghi-Boroujerdi argues that the gaps between the two versions are not accidental, but a calculated strategic move by both sides to appeal to their domestic audiences while opening space for compromise in upcoming talks scheduled to be held in Islamabad. “The Persian version is considerably more ambitious and detailed. This likely reflects both sides signalling to their respective domestic audiences and staking out maximalist opening positions,” he explained. “The gap between the two versions is itself an indication of how much remains to be bridged in [negotiations] in Islamabad.”

Fresh off the U.S.-Iran ceasefire deal that paused tit-for-tat hostilities across the Middle East, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has launched a three-day diplomatic tour of Gulf states with a single, high-stakes core goal: locking in the temporary truce and unblocking the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, a linchpin of global energy supplies.

Downing Street confirmed ahead of the trip that Starmer’s central focus will be advancing coordinated diplomatic work to entrench the ceasefire, a breakthrough that emerged after weeks of escalating conflict between Washington, Tehran and their regional allies. In remarks delivered early Wednesday, the prime minister struck a cautious but hopeful tone, noting that the overnight agreement has already delivered a much-needed moment of de-escalation for the region and energy markets worldwide. “Together with our partners we must do all we can to support and sustain this ceasefire, turn it into a lasting agreement and reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” Starmer said, framing the mission as a critical test of British diplomatic leadership in a fractured regional landscape.

The current standoff over the strait traces back to early March, when Iran closed the 21-mile waterway – which carries roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil and gas supplies – in retaliation for a joint U.S.-Israeli military strike on Iranian territory. While Tehran has already offered a two-week window of “safe passage” for commercial vessels during upcoming negotiations on a 10-point Iranian proposal, the long-term status of the strait remains unresolved. The Iranian plan enshrines the country’s continued full control over the waterway and includes a controversial provision to charge all passing vessels a minimum toll of $1 per barrel, to be paid in either Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency, a provision that has raised concerns among energy importing nations.

This diplomatic push comes after London hosted a high-profile summit last week aimed at assembling a broad international coalition to pressure Iran to fully reopen the strait. But the initiative suffered an early setback: major regional players including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan all declined to attend, leaving Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates as the only Middle Eastern nations to join the coalition. Western partners including France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan did sign on, but the absence of key Gulf states has left the UK’s effort far from the broad-based consensus it was designed to achieve. Downing Street has not yet released a full list of which Gulf nations Starmer will visit during the tour, fueling speculation that he will hold private outreach to the non-participating regional powers to win their support.

Starmer’s mission comes against a backdrop of shifting British diplomatic alliances, as London navigates increasingly tense relations with the U.S. under the second Trump administration. Over the past month, Trump has repeatedly criticized Starmer’s government for not doing enough to back the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. While Starmer initially resisted U.S. requests to access British military bases for strikes on Iranian targets, he ultimately approved the use of those facilities for attacks on Iranian missile sites, and later for operations aimed at forcing the strait open. When Trump demanded in mid-March that NATO allies deploy warships to the waterway to enforce its reopening – even threatening that the alliance faced a “very bad” future if members refused to comply – Britain joined other major European powers in rejecting the call, a snub that further worsened transatlantic tensions.

The UK’s independent coalition initiative is widely interpreted as a deliberate effort to align London more closely with European partners and repair its longstanding ties with Gulf allies, at a moment when U.S. policy in the region has divided global powers. Like London, many Gulf states have pursued independent strategies for reopening the strait that diverge from Washington’s more confrontational approach. But with only two small Gulf states currently backing the UK plan, the prime minister faces an uphill battle to win buy-in from the region’s most influential powers, leaving the success of his mission very much in doubt.

The trip also carries a clear signal of the rapidly shifting status of Britain’s once-close relationship with Israel: Starmer has no plans to visit Israel during his Middle East tour, a break from longstanding tradition for sitting British prime ministers. Analysts say this choice underscores just how far bilateral relations have deteriorated over the past two years. While London cooperated militarily with Israel during its 2024-2025 military campaign in Gaza, and Israeli President Isaac Herzog was hosted in London in late 2025, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is effectively unwelcome in the UK due to an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes. Relations have cooled even further amid Starmer’s public reluctance to fully back the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

BEIJING – Amid unfolding trade developments that expose the emptiness of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities’ claims of diplomatic gains, a senior spokeswoman for China’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office issued a blunt rebuke on Wednesday, warning that the DPP’s groveling pursuit of United States favor will never deliver tangible benefits for the people of Taiwan.

Zhu Fenglian made the remarks in response to press inquiries surrounding a new U.S. trade policy that imposes a 100% tariff on imported pharmaceutical products. Contrary to repeated public claims from DPP leaders that Taiwan had secured exclusive preferential treatment under the new scheme, the island was ultimately left off the list of approved exporters eligible for tariff exemptions.

The spokeswoman stressed that what the DPP has misleadingly framed as “preferential treatment” from Washington is in reality little more than one-sided coercion and economic exploitation of Taiwan by the United States. For decades, the U.S. has operated under an explicit “America First” doctrine that prioritizes its own domestic and geopolitical interests exclusively, with no regard for the well-being of its self-proclaimed partners, Zhu explained.

Beyond economic harm, Zhu pointed out that the DPP’s deliberate choice to curry favor with Washington by sacrificing the livelihoods and economic interests of Taiwan’s people is rooted in a cynical, malicious political calculation. The ruling separatist party seeks to trade Taiwan’s resources and future for U.S. backing of its campaign to split Taiwan from China, a goal that runs directly counter to the shared interests of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

The spokeswoman added that growing numbers of Taiwan compatriots have already come to recognize this pattern. More and more residents of the island now understand that the U.S. advances its own goals through pressure tactics and unilateral power politics, with no commitment to fairness or mutual benefit, regardless of promises made to regional partners.