The recent ceasefire announcement between the United States and Iran has brought a wave of relief, as negotiations are scheduled to commence in Islamabad on Friday. This development presents an opportunity to de-escalate the immediate threat of a broader conflict. However, it is essential to recognize that this does not signify a comprehensive solution; rather, it represents a temporary respite—a chance to explore pathways toward a complex but essential political resolution.
While officials from both sides may declare progress, the truth is that none of the involved parties can claim victory in the ongoing conflict. President Donald Trump has characterized the situation as both a military success and a move toward regime change in Iran. However, the war, which was initially perceived as a quick and decisive action, has proven to be far more costly and damaging to the credibility of the United States. Instead of leading to regime change, it has allowed for the emergence of more hardline leaders within Iran’s existing political framework. The Islamic Republic’s structure remains robust, demonstrating its resilience and ability to consolidate authority in the face of adversity.
Conversely, it would be misleading to suggest that Iran has emerged unscathed. The nation and its military capabilities have sustained significant damage, yet in Tehran, such degradation does not equate to defeat. Iran still maintains operational capabilities and poses threats across various spheres. Its control over the strait of Hormuz, combined with its missile and drone technology, allows it to inflict harm and influence events beyond its borders. However, these advantages come with significant costs, as Tehran now faces immense political and economic challenges stemming from a distressed populace and growing discontent from neighboring countries, further isolating it in the region.
The repercussions of the conflict have been swift and extensive across the region. Gulf nations find themselves economically and strategically vulnerable, constantly enduring Iranian missile and drone attacks. Israel is confronted with the potential for escalation on multiple fronts, while Lebanon and Iraq remain susceptible to spillover effects. This is not merely a localized conflict but rather a broader, interconnected regional war.
Had a ceasefire not been established, the United States would have faced increasingly perilous options for escalation, including potential strikes on Kharg Island or efforts to reopen the strait of Hormuz. Additionally, there was the looming threat of Trump following through on his vow to target civilian infrastructure—a move that would violate international law. Each of these options carried significant political and strategic implications, risking a prolonged conflict for the U.S. Tehran recognized this moment as an opportunity to seek a lasting resolution to its tensions with Washington.
This convergence of risks helps explain why a ceasefire has been reached at this juncture. However, it also highlights the challenges of transforming this temporary pause into a sustainable agreement. The most contentious issues are set to be addressed during the talks in Islamabad, where the central questions will revolve around trust and substance: Can the U.S. provide credible guarantees against renewed military action, and is Iran ready to accept limitations on its threats in the strait of Hormuz? Sanctions relief will also play a crucial role, as any agreement must make de-escalation politically feasible for both parties. The involvement of external actors, such as China, Europe, and the UK, may be necessary as mediators.
The nuclear program of Iran will remain a pivotal topic during these discussions. Building on previous talks held in Geneva six weeks ago, Tehran must demonstrate a willingness to compromise, potentially by downblending enriched uranium to make it less suitable for weaponization or by permitting international inspectors back into the country. In return, Iran will demand that Washington acknowledges its right to enrichment. The extent to which the U.S. is willing to tie meaningful sanctions relief to these actions will be critical in determining the durability of any potential agreement.
Equally important is the risk of overlooking the broader regional context. Iran has advocated for the ceasefire to extend to Lebanon, linking it to the same confrontation. However, Israel has made it clear that its operations against Hezbollah are not included in the ceasefire and have continued its activities. Gulf states are seeking assurances that they will not be subjected to ongoing threats to their infrastructure and shipping routes. They have legitimate demands for security guarantees and compensation. Meanwhile, Israel remains deeply skeptical of any arrangement that leaves Iran’s missile, nuclear, and military capabilities intact. Should the talks in Islamabad focus too narrowly on U.S.-Iranian issues, they may stabilize the immediate crisis but leave the larger regional order exposed to renewed disturbances.
As U.S. forces continue to build up in the region and the potential for renewed escalation looms over the negotiations, the risk of the ceasefire collapsing remains significant. This could manifest through new threats, increased pressure on the strait of Hormuz, incremental military strikes, or an extension of negotiations beyond their original timeline.
The ceasefire should not be viewed as the conclusion of the crisis but rather as the beginning of a new and uncertain chapter. What emerges from Islamabad may not lead to lasting peace, but the alternative—a return to escalating hostilities—poses a far greater risk. The window of opportunity is narrow, and it is crucial for all parties to demonstrate their willingness to keep it open.
Sanam Vakil serves as the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House.
