by Asad Mirza
A fragile Israel-US-Iran ceasefire is collapsing as demands clash, hostilities continue, and uncertainty looms over negotiations, raising doubts about peace and prospects of prolonged conflict
With no side caring for the other side’s core demands, the proposed two-week ceasefire in the Israel-US war against Iran, which started just a day before, appears to be on the verge of collapse, with neither party agreeing to the other’s demands. Iran is ignoring the 15-point plan of Washington, while the US and Israel have not fully agreed to the 10-point Iranian counter-plan.
US President Donald Trump announced the conditional truce on April 8, but within 24 hours, hostilities started between Iran and Israel. The initial plan was supposed to pause direct US-Israeli strikes on Iran in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the start of peace talks. However, Israeli attacks against Lebanon continued unabated, with American Vice President JD Vance saying that Lebanon was not part of the ceasefire agreement.
The peace negotiations are due to take place tomorrow (April 10) in Islamabad, but at the moment, their future remains dicey.
Basically, the core demands of Iran and the US diverge from each other. Iran’s 10-point plan includes lifting economic sanctions, retaining control over the Strait of Hormuz, and acceptance of its uranium enrichment for a peaceful nuclear programme. It also calls for an end to attacks on allies, including in Lebanon and Yemen, and a withdrawal of US troops from the region. Iran further demands compensation for aggression and the release of its frozen assets. Many of Iran’s demands clash directly with the US’s reported 15-point plan.
The US plan calls for an end to Iran’s uranium enrichment, limits on its missile programme, and a halt to Tehran’s support for regional proxies. The US also seeks the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for international trade.
Hours after the announcement of a ceasefire, Israel launched a coordinated wave of more than 100 air strikes across Lebanon. Hundreds of people were killed and injured; hospitals were overwhelmed and ran short of blood.
Meanwhile, Iranian missiles and drones continued to rain down across the Gulf. In Saudi Arabia, they hit a vital pipeline that carries 7 million barrels per day of oil to the Red Sea, allowing a share of the kingdom’s oil exports to bypass Hormuz. In Kuwait, they targeted power and water desalination plants. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) said it was attacked more than 50 times. This was one of the heaviest days of Iranian attacks since the start of the war.
Some analysts see the Iranian response as an answer to Israel’s actions in Lebanon, reports The Economist. Others wonder if it is a consequence of the decentralised way Iran has fought this war. With its leaders hidden in bunkers and the mobile-phone network penetrated by Israeli spies, communication is difficult; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime’s most elite fighting force, has given commanders in the field latitude to launch attacks on their own initiative. Some may be unaware of the ceasefire or may be choosing to ignore it.
It is too early to know whether the ceasefire will truly take hold, let alone whether the talks in Pakistan will succeed. That means it is premature to adjudicate whether Iran or America has won the war (although that has not stopped both from claiming victory). If the negotiations lead to a deal, and Iran agrees to end its regional aggression in exchange for relief from American sanctions, both would arguably win; if they fail and the war resumes, both might lose, opines The Economist.
Overall, in this war of nerves waged by Iran and a war of unpredictability waged by the US, there would be no clear winner. However, it is also believed that Trump agreed to this ceasefire to provide some respite for beleaguered American troops in the region and to marshal additional forces for deployment.
It is also a fact that the financial toll is increasing day by day for America, and even though Iran, too, is bleeding both financially and in human terms, it has conditioned its citizens for such a war for a long time. Thus, it may not bow to American demands, as it believes that if it wins the war, its regional supremacy would be established, enabling it to mount campaigns against its Arab neighbours.
(The writer is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national, international, defence and strategic affairs, environmental issues, an interfaith practitioner, and a media consultant. Ideas are personal.)
