US-Iran ceasefire fragile, experts say, as unresolved issues loom

Lead

A two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran, announced on April 7, has halted direct hostilities but remains fragile, according to multiple experts who spoke to TASS and The Media Line. The agreement, brokered with the mediation of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has paused the fighting but has not resolved the underlying disputes that drove the conflict, leaving analysts skeptical about its durability.

Coverage Comparison

Coverage of the ceasefire has been consistent across outlets, though each emphasized different aspects of the fragility. The Jerusalem Post, citing The Media Line, focused on the unresolved issues that remain despite the pause, including Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and Israel's ongoing military campaign in Lebanon. TASS's reports, drawing on Japanese and Middle Eastern analysts, highlighted the strategic calculations of both Washington and Tehran, as well as the potential for Israeli actions to undermine the agreement.

Key Claims

The ceasefire was announced by US President Donald Trump on April 7, following a proposal by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who also invited both parties to further talks in Islamabad on April 10. According to the announcement, the ceasefire is subject to Iran's agreement to the "complete, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz," a waterway that once carried a fifth of global oil exports. In exchange, Tehran agreed to halt what it called "defensive attacks" as long as no strikes are carried out against Iran.

Multiple experts told TASS that the ceasefire is fragile and could easily be broken. Yoshida Tomoaki, a research fellow at Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, told the Yomiuri Shimbun that disputes over Iran's missile and nuclear forces, as well as its support for pro-Iranian groups in the region, "are likely to remain deadlocked." Tsuneo Watanabe, a senior fellow at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation in Tokyo, echoed this, saying "I must admit that the current ceasefire is very fragile," and that the US and Iran will not agree on "the controversial issues such as Iran's nuclear development."

A key point of contention is Iran's nuclear program. The Jerusalem Post noted that the status of Iran's enriched uranium remains unresolved, with the amount still not publicly accounted for. This issue, along with the future of the Strait of Hormuz, remains a central obstacle to a lasting agreement.

Another critical factor is Israel's role. Several experts have expressed concern that Israel may jeopardize the ceasefire. Hideaki Shinoda, a professor at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, told TASS that Israel might try to persuade the US "to go back to the front line," thereby obstructing the implementation of the agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly asserted his intention to maintain operational freedom on the Lebanese front, a stance that Tunisian military analyst Abdel Hamid Mahfouzi warned could lead to the ceasefire's collapse. "Israeli arrogance and unilateral actions may very well lead to its collapse," he told TASS.

Perspectives

Japanese analysts generally view the ceasefire as a tactical pause born of mutual exhaustion. Yoshida Tomoaki noted that Iran "managed to drag the US into a war of attrition," leaving Washington tired and Tehran ready to declare victory while it restructures its leadership. He suggested that the ceasefire represents a "new normal" with Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz, requiring global adjustments in security and economic policy. Tsuneo Watanabe similarly framed the ceasefire as a face-saving measure, allowing both sides to "declare victory to their constituency."

Middle Eastern analysts emphasize the unresolved regional dynamics, particularly Israel's actions in Lebanon and Iran's support for Hezbollah. Abdel Hamid Mahfouzi stressed that Iran remains committed to its ally and that sustaining the ceasefire depends on deterring Israeli strikes against Iran's regional allies. He also argued that a genuine, lasting peace would require a broader shift in the international order, away from what he called American hegemony.

Israeli perspectives, as captured by The Media Line, offer a more positive assessment of the ceasefire's impact. Raphael BenLevi of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy described the pause as "a net positive for Israel," citing the significant degradation of Iran's missile capabilities and its ability to produce more. He argued that Israel had already accomplished its primary military objectives, even if the ceasefire does not resolve all political issues.