Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long
Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long
In a single day, Donald Trump transitioned from warning that Iran’s civilization would perish to endorsing its ten-point proposal as a viable negotiation framework in Pakistan. The ceasefire, primarily, offers temporary relief to civilians in the Middle East who have endured relentless bombardment since the US and Israel’s conflict with Iran began on 28 February. However, the people of Lebanon are not included, as Israel asserted the agreement did not extend to them, prompting a significant and lethal aerial assault shortly after.
The temporary calm in other regions may not endure. While both Iran and the US have compelling motivations to conclude the conflict, their public stances are starkly divergent. Two weeks remain for the parties, who lack mutual trust, to reach an agreement. The US Vice-President J.D. Vance characterized the ceasefire as a ‘fragile truce,’ a fitting description.
“The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism proved utterly incapable of defending itself, its people or its territory,” said Pete Hegseth, the US Defense Secretary, during a statement at the Pentagon. He called the operation a ‘capital V military victory,’ declaring it ‘historic and overwhelming.’
Concurrently, Iran’s First Vice President, Mohammed Reza Aref, shared on social media that ‘the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun.’ Trump’s backers argue that the undeniable devastation inflicted on Iran by the US and Israel has compelled it to negotiate. They perceive his statements as calculated strategies to secure a favorable outcome.
Despite Trump’s attempt to portray the elimination of senior Iranian leaders as the beginning of a new era, regime change has not materialized. Supporters of the Iranian regime, anticipating its collapse, remain unconvinced by the current trajectory of the conflict. Iran will seek to bolster its position, leveraging its continued control of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic asset.
Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a pivotal deterrent. Should hostilities resume, it could swiftly disrupt global trade, inflicting economic harm. Prior to 28 February, international vessels could traverse the strait unimpeded. Now, Iran insists that during the ceasefire, ships must coordinate their passage with the Iranian military, potentially leading to new tolls for shippers, akin to those at the Suez Canal.
Israel was absent from the diplomatic efforts that led to the ceasefire. Netanyahu aimed to inflict further damage on the Islamic Republic, but in an election year, his political rivals, such as opposition leader Yair Lapid, have criticized him for jeopardizing Israel’s security. They are concerned that the tactical successes against Iran may not culminate in a lasting resolution.