From Threat to Ceasefire: How Did the U.S. Lose Its Dominance?

Original Article Title: What on earth just happened? Trump, Iran, and the unlikely ceasefire
Original Article Author: Trita Parsi
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: From escalating threats to a sudden ceasefire, followed by continued post-ceasefire conflicts, the situation surrounding Iran seems to have cooled down but has actually not concluded. Instead, it has entered a more complex phase where ceasefire coexists with strategic maneuvering.

This article focuses on a key shift — a reversal in the negotiation dynamics. As pointed out by the author of this article, Trita Parsi, military actions did not force Iran's concession but rather led the U.S. into a negotiation framework based on its "Ten-Point Plan." Although Washington has not formally accepted all conditions, Iran's actual concession on the Hormuz issue marked a crucial strategic retreat, allowing Tehran to regain diplomatic and economic leverage.

Thus, the outcome of the conflict has taken a counterintuitive turn: it has not only failed to weaken Iran but has, to some extent, restored its deterrence capability. Meanwhile, U.S. military actions have not altered the outcome of the game but have undermined its own threat credibility, necessitating subsequent negotiations to be based on genuine compromises.

However, the ceasefire itself is highly fragile. Localized conflicts persist, Israel's actions add further uncertainty, keeping the situation constantly on the brink of escalation, with its stability highly dependent on external variables.

Deeper repercussions lie in how a conflict originally intended to pressure or even drive regime change may inadvertently solidify Iran's internal power structure. The U.S. has shifted from a position of dominance to a negotiating party, while Iran has transformed from a pressured entity to a strategic player, leading the conflict into a more prolonged and intricate phase.

The following is the original article:

Yesterday started with Donald Trump issuing a genocidal threat against Iran on social media; yet, merely ten hours later, the situation took a sharp turn — announcing a 14-day ceasefire agreement based on Iran's terms.

Even considering the consistent dramatic fluctuations during the Trump era, such a reversal appears exceedingly abrupt. So, what consensus did both sides reach? And what does this signify?

In a subsequent post, Trump stated that Iran had agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open during the two-week ceasefire period. He also mentioned that negotiations would take place during this period, based on Iran's proposed "Ten-Point Plan," calling it a "viable" negotiation framework.

This decalogue includes:

1. The U.S. must commit fundamentally to not engaging in aggression against Iran.

2. Continue to acknowledge Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz.

3. Accept Iran's uranium enrichment for its nuclear program.

4. Lift all primary sanctions against Iran.

5. Lift all secondary sanctions against foreign entities doing business with Iranian institutions.

6. Terminate all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran.

7. Terminate all International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions related to the Iran nuclear program.

8. Pay reparations to Iran for war losses.

9. Withdraw U.S. military forces from the region.

10. Achieve a ceasefire on all fronts, including the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Of course, the U.S. did not agree to all the points in this decalogue. However, just using Iran's proposed framework as a basis for negotiations already constitutes a significant diplomatic victory for Tehran. More notably, during the ceasefire, Iran will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz and, together with Oman, will charge tolls to passing ships, as reported by the Associated Press.

In other words, Washington has effectively conceded that to reopen this crucial waterway, it must to some extent recognize Iran's actual control over it.

The geopolitical implications of this could be profound. As Mohammad Eslami and Zeynab Malakouti pointed out in Responsible Statecraft, Tehran is likely to seize this opportunity to rebuild economic ties with Asian and European partners—countries that had extensive trade with Iran but were forced to exit its markets over the past 15 years due to U.S. sanctions.

Iran's strategic calculus is not only motivated by its support for the Palestinians and Lebanese but also driven by clear practical considerations. Israel's ongoing military strikes pose a risk of reigniting a direct Iran-Israel conflict—a confrontation that has erupted twice since October 7th. From Tehran's perspective, achieving a long-term de-escalation of conflict with Israel requires simultaneously ending Israeli wars in Gaza and Lebanon. This is not a side political demand but a prerequisite.

The upcoming Washington-Tehran talks in Islamabad may still end without results. However, the underlying dynamics have shifted. Trump's use of force failed to achieve its objectives, undermining the credibility of U.S. military deterrence and introducing a new variable into U.S.-Iran diplomacy.

Washington may still bluster and wield threats of force, but after an unsuccessful war, such threats have become less credible. The U.S. no longer holds the position to dictate terms unilaterally, and any agreement must be based on genuine mutual concessions. This means real diplomacy—patience, restraint, and tolerance for uncertainty—a set of qualities not often associated with Donald Trump. Moreover, this process may also require the involvement of other major powers, especially China, to help stabilize the situation and reduce the risk of further escalation.

Most crucially, whether this ceasefire endures will depend largely on Trump's ability to restrain Israel and prevent it from derailing the diplomatic process. There should be no illusions about this. Israeli senior officials have already condemned the agreement as the "biggest political disaster in the country's history," indicating that this fragile moment could easily collapse at any time.

Even if the negotiations ultimately fall apart and Israel resumes strikes against Iran, it does not necessarily mean the U.S. will rejoin the conflict. There is little reason to believe a second round of conflict would yield different results or prevent Iran from once again possessing the ability to "hold the global economy hostage." In this sense, Tehran has at least partially restored its deterrence capability for now.

One final point deserves particular emphasis: this "war of choice" was not just a strategic miscalculation. It not only failed to bring about regime change but may have actually prolonged the life of Iran's theocratic system—a situation reminiscent of how Saddam Hussein's 1980 invasion of Iran helped Ayatollah Khomeini consolidate power domestically.

The profound implications of this miscalculation may continue to vex historians for decades to come.

[Original Article Link]