TOI correspondent from Washington: In a sudden turn that pulled the world back from the brink of apocalyptic attack, the United States and Iran have entered into a fragile two-week ceasefire after days of escalating attacks and threats, providing a narrow window for diplomacy to achieve Middle East peace amid residual mistrust and suspicion. The ceasefire, announced just two hours before an 8pm deadline by US President Donald Trump to “annihilate Iranian civilisation”, marks a welcome – if chaotic – deceleration in a months-long conflict that has seen global oil prices surge 60% and the world economy boom. However, questions remain about whether the ceasefire, put together through a mix of public signaling and backchannel contacts, is a genuine turning point or merely an intervention in the volatile confrontation.As can be understood from official statements and diplomatic sources, the framework of the ceasefire is limited but significant. Based on a 10-point proposal drafted by Tehran, which Trump initially dismissed as inadequate but now says forms a “viable basis” for talks to be held in Islamabad on Friday, it would involve both sides halting direct military attacks and demobilizing allied or proxy forces for a period of 14 days. Maritime activity in and around the Strait of Hormuz is expected to continue under close monitoring, with informal assurances against interference with commercial shipping. However, no formal written agreement has been released publicly, and key details – including enforcement mechanisms and verification – remain opaque.The breakthrough came not from the United Nations or traditional European mediators, but through intense backchannel negotiations by Pakistan, whose Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Asim Munir reportedly engaged US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to end the temporary ceasefire.“On the basis of conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan and Field Marshal Asim Munir, and in which they requested that I stop the destructive force being sent into Iran tonight, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the full, immediate and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack on Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a two-way ceasefire!” Trump said in a social media post, presenting himself as a liberal winner. Although he claimed that the reason for agreeing to the ceasefire was because “we have already met and exceeded all military objectives, and are very far from a definitive agreement related to long-term peace with Iran and peace in the Middle East,” Trump acknowledged receiving a 10-point proposal from Iran, which he said “is a practical basis for negotiating.” “Almost all of the various points of previous dispute between the United States and Iran have been agreed upon, but in a two-week period the agreement will be finalized and completed,” he wrote. But that spin was contradicted by an Iranian statement issued through the Tasnim news agency (the semi-official voice of the IRGC), the authenticity of which Trump disputed. The statement congratulated the Iranian people for “forcing the criminal US to accept its 10-point plan”, calling the ceasefire conditional and reversible, while warning that any violations would be met with a “decisive response”.” Trump pointed to a statement by Iran’s foreign minister, dismissing the statement as a “hoax” and “fake news spread by CNN.” Part of the confusion appears to have arisen from overlapping and potentially divergent signals within Iran’s own leadership. Statements attributed to its Foreign Ministry struck a somewhat conciliatory tone, stressing the importance of dialogue and indicating readiness for structured talks. This has fueled speculation about a possible rift between Iran’s diplomatic apparatus and the more radical clerical and security establishment that ultimately holds authority. The diplomatic center of gravity of the ceasefire has now shifted to Islamabad, where talks are scheduled to take place on Friday. However, Pakistan’s role has also not been without controversy. Some commentators have suggested that Sharif and Munir effectively acted as “wingmen” for Trump, helping to bring about a pause that allows the US President to back down from earlier threats without having to back down under pressure. Critics point to the president’s past warnings about excessive force – including rhetoric calling for the destruction of Iranian civilization – as evidence of an overreach that requires a diplomatic off-ramp. In this reading, the ceasefire serves as a face-saving mechanism rather than a negotiated settlement. The social media post showed an edited history of Sharif’s statement to show that he was posting messages directed at her, prompting the day’s events.Trump surrogates reject such characterizations, insisting that the pause reflects strength and strategic discipline rather than a concession. Yet the optics remain controversial, especially in light of growing commentary in political and media circles around the so-called “TACO” label – “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Although such satires are not part of the formal policy discussion, they underscore the domestic dimension of the narrative battle surrounding the ceasefire.
voting
Do you believe that the recent ceasefire between the US and Iran can bring lasting peace to the Middle East?
The situation in Israel adds another layer of complexity. Officials in Israel have not publicly opposed the ceasefire, but nor have they explicitly endorsed it, while indicating cautious acceptance as long as it does not hinder their ability to take action against perceived threats. At the heart of the upcoming talks in Pakistan are several unresolved issues that will determine whether the ceasefire can turn into something more durable. These include the scope of sanctions relief, the future of Iran’s nuclear program, the role of a regional proxy, and security guarantees for maritime traffic. Diplomats will be watching for signs of coherence in Iran’s negotiating position, particularly whether the State Department’s tone is in line with broader leadership.