A Moment of Risk and Opportunity: How Two Ceasefires Could Boost US-Iran Talks

With not one, but two ceasefires now in effect across the Middle East, is the stage set for a pair of historic breakthroughs?

The ceasefires – one involving Iran and another in Lebanon – are both described as “shaky” (as ceasefires often are). However, as the sounds of war once again subside, this moment is fraught with both opportunity and risk.

Lebanon Ceasefire: A Win for Iran?

Ostensibly, Thursday night’s announcement of a 10-day pause in fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah appears to be a strategic gain for Iran. Tehran had previously demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon, stating that progress in talks with the U.S. could not be expected without it. With the pause now implemented, Iran has responded by declaring the Strait of Hormuz “completely open”.

As demonstrated by last weekend’s marathon negotiating session in Islamabad, progress was indeed possible even as fighting in Lebanon continued (with Israel merely avoiding further attacks on Beirut). However, both Iran and Pakistan insisted on Lebanon’s inclusion in the discussions. This inclusion has now occurred, much to the dismay of Israelis living near the northern border, who believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yielded to American pressure rather than ensuring Hezbollah never fires another rocket at their country.

For some in Israel, the ceasefire is seen as playing into Iran’s hands, allowing an adversary to influence the course of events. Shirit Avitan Cohen of the popular right-wing daily Israel Hayom wrote this morning, ‘The ceasefire effectively puts Israel’s stamp of approval on the very situation the country had been trying to avoid: legitimizing the link between Iran and the Lebanese theatre of operations.’ She added, ‘Yesterday, Hezbollah also received final confirmation that its master, and Lebanon’s, still has its hands on the wheel and continues to dictate what happens in the region.’

Gains for All Parties

In fact, all parties involved in these overlapping conflicts appear to gain something from the latest agreement. For U.S. President Donald Trump and the leadership in Iran, it presents an opportunity to claim credit for facilitating a ceasefire. Netanyahu can highlight that Israeli troops remain in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese government, after months of effort, now engages in direct negotiations with Israel.

Hezbollah, while stating it will abide by the ceasefire (and insisting it still has its ‘finger on the trigger’), has not been defeated and maintains it will not be disarmed. Senior Hezbollah leader Wafiq Safa told the BBC on Thursday, ‘Not until a proper ceasefire, a real one. Not until Israeli withdrawal. Before the return of prisoners, before the return of displaced people and before the reconstruction. Until then, it is not possible to talk about Hezbollah’s weapons.’

Lina Khatib, from the London-based think tank Chatham House, states that the ceasefire paves the way for Israel and Lebanon to continue their face-to-face talks, but emphasizes that the obstacles to a peace agreement between them are enormous. ‘The issue is very complicated,’ she says. ‘It has to do with border demarcation, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanese territory.’ Israel and Lebanon have technically been in a state of war since 1948 and do not maintain diplomatic relations.

However, far from strengthening Iran’s regional position, Khatib argues that this week’s direct talks in Washington between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors have initiated the process of removing Lebanon from Iran’s direct influence. ‘The regional balance of power is shifting away from Iran,’ she says. ‘Now it’s no longer going to be able to use Lebanon as a bargaining chip.’

The Broader US-Iran Diplomatic Process

Nonetheless, much still hinges on the other diplomatic process: the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Reducing what America and Israel perceive as Iran’s ‘malign’ behavior across the Middle East will be on Washington’s agenda, should a second widely anticipated round of talks in Islamabad proceed. For Israel in particular, it is vital that Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen is curtailed, aiming to end decades during which Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’ has been able to threaten and harass the Jewish state. Iran is unlikely to easily relinquish what it considers a vital tool of regional influence.

But that is just one of the formidable challenges that lie ahead. The others – the fate of Iran’s nuclear program and the future of the Strait of Hormuz – will require significant negotiation.

Trump, as always, is striving to project an image of control, stating that a deal with Iran is ‘very close’ and that the war is going ‘swimmingly.’ He told reporters that Iran has already agreed to hand over approximately 440kg (970lb) of highly enriched uranium (which the president often refers to as ‘nuclear dust’), believed to be buried under the rubble of a facility in Isfahan bombed last year. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei denied that claim, telling state TV: ‘The transfer of uranium to the U.S. has not been presented as an option. Iran’s enriched uranium is as sacred to us as the soil of Iran and will under no circumstances be transferred anywhere.’ Any deal on the nuclear file would also require a pledge from Iran never to build a nuclear weapon, as well as agreement on the duration of its willingness to suspend enrichment.

Strait of Hormuz: A New Framework?

Then there is Iran’s other strategic tool, always available but only recently deployed: its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran states it seeks a new set of protocols to govern maritime traffic through the narrow waterway, aiming to replace its current control with a legal framework that would recognize what it considers its sovereign right, alongside Oman, to control movement in and out of the Gulf.

In the meantime, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, welcoming the ceasefire in Lebanon, stated that the Strait is ‘completely open for the remaining period of the ceasefire’ – in other words, for the next week. There is a caveat: vessels will be expected to use what Aragchi referred to as ‘the co-ordinated route as already announced by the Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’. This appears to refer to new routes, running much closer to the Iranian mainland, north of the two traffic separation lanes in use before the conflict. How quickly this eases the bottleneck of vessels trapped inside the Gulf remains to be seen.

Trump, in his typically emphatic manner, declared that the strait is ‘FULLY OPEN AND READY FOR FULL PASSAGE,’ and markets appear to have responded positively. However, captains may remain cautious, and Trump stated that the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports remains in place for now.

Looking Ahead

Despite these positive developments, it is safe to say that negotiators still have significant ground to cover. The last major deal with Iran, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), took approximately 20 months to negotiate and solely addressed the nuclear issue. Trump withdrew America from the deal in 2018, leading to its collapse.

Trump often projects the image of a rapid deal-maker, rarely reflecting on what, if anything, his deals truly achieved. Despite the fanfare surrounding his two summits with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un in 2018-19, the meetings in fact achieved very little. Pyongyang continues to develop its nuclear program.

However, after the tumultuous events of the past six weeks, a diplomatic process is now well underway and has received a significant boost following the ceasefire in Lebanon. Is it enough to prevent an eventual return to war? Not even Trump knows that.