Arabic version: محادثات الولايات المتحدة وإيران في باكستان تثير تساؤلات حول جدوى وقف إطلاق النار

Expectations for the upcoming talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan are understandably modest. There is even a risk that the meeting won’t take place at all. According to Al Jazeera, the effectiveness of the ceasefire may ultimately hinge not on achieving a lasting agreement but rather on preventing a return to conflict.

Tehran’s response to the proposed ceasefire has been mixed. While the Iranian government presents the ceasefire as a victory, voices within its security establishment express worries that Iran may have compromised its deterrent capabilities by not demanding a complete cessation of hostilities. Notably, the terms of the ceasefire reflect Iran’s proposals more than those from the US, with negotiations based on Tehran’s 10-point proposal instead of President Trump’s more stringent 15-point plan.

The ceasefire allows Iran to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, continuing to collect transit fees from passing vessels. This concession from Washington may signal an acknowledgment of Iran’s authority in the region, raising eyebrows among US officials given the extensive demands from Tehran. These demands include recognition of Iran’s control over the strait, acceptance of uranium enrichment, and the lifting of all US primary and secondary sanctions – as well as United Nations sanctions – to a withdrawal of US combat forces from the region, and a comprehensive ceasefire that would extend to Israel’s operations in Lebanon and Gaza.

The linkage of the ceasefire to Israel’s military actions presents a significant challenge, as Israel is not part of the negotiations and has historically resisted agreements it did not help shape. Iran insists that any ceasefire must encompass Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon, viewing this as essential for its regional strategy and credibility.

Regardless of the outcome of the talks, the strategic landscape has shifted. The credibility of US military threats has diminished following previous conflicts, suggesting that Washington can no longer dictate terms. A plausible scenario may involve a non-negotiated status quo, where both sides avoid full-scale war while maintaining a low-level conflict. This arrangement could allow both Iran and the US to claim partial victories, fostering a fragile equilibrium in the region.