Dutch Expert Says Israel’s Influence Key to US Iran Policy as Fragile Ceasefire Holds

Lead

A Dutch political scientist has described the newly announced ceasefire between the United States and Iran as extremely fragile, while arguing that Israel’s influence continues to shape American policy toward Tehran. Kees van der Pijl, a former professor at the University of Sussex, made the remarks in interviews with the Russian news agency TASS on April 9. According to TASS reporting, US President Donald Trump announced a two-week mutual ceasefire on April 7, citing progress on nearly all contentious issues and identifying Iran’s 10-point proposal as a working basis for further negotiations. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is mediating and has invited the parties to face-to-face talks scheduled for April 10.

Van der Pijl told TASS that a ceasefire remains preferable to continued military exchanges, yet the likelihood of disruption remains high because the sides remain far apart in their core demands. He also linked the trajectory of US decision-making on Iran to what he described as a long-standing alignment between American and Israeli political circles.

Coverage Comparison

Coverage of the expert’s comments has appeared entirely through TASS English-language dispatches filed from The Hague on April 9. One report centered on the fragility of the ceasefire and the distance between the parties’ positions. A second focused on Israel’s role in shaping US foreign policy toward Iran and the historical formation of what van der Pijl called a bloc of Atlanticists and Zionists. A third examined possible US and Israeli actions during the pause, particularly the replenishment of weapons stockpiles. All three dispatches recount the same core sequence of events surrounding Trump’s April 7 announcement, the content of Iran’s 10-point proposal, and Pakistan’s mediation offer. Because the material originates from a single agency interviewing the same expert, the accounts are complementary rather than contradictory; differences lie mainly in which element of van der Pijl’s analysis each dispatch chooses to lead with.

Key Claims

• The ceasefire between the US and Iran is extremely fragile, and the likelihood it will be disrupted is high, according to Dutch political scientist Kees van der Pijl as reported by TASS.
• The parties remain too far apart in their demands, complicating prospects for sustainable de-escalation, van der Pijl told TASS.
• Israel’s influence remains one of the key factors in shaping US foreign policy toward Iran, the expert stated in a TASS interview.
• The actions of the United States and Israel in the Middle East are extremely closely intertwined, according to van der Pijl’s comments carried by TASS.
• On April 7, US President Donald Trump announced a two-week mutual ceasefire with Iran and said Washington views Tehran’s 10-point proposal as a working basis for further negotiations, as reported across multiple TASS dispatches.
• Tehran’s 10-point proposal includes adherence to the principle of non-aggression, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, uranium enrichment within the country, the lifting of primary and secondary sanctions, the payment of compensation, and the withdrawal of US forces from the region, according to TASS accounts of Trump’s remarks.
• Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif invited the parties to negotiate on April 10, with talks expected to be face-to-face, as reported by TASS citing Iranian state broadcasting.
• During the ceasefire the US and Israel will likely focus on replenishing weapons stockpiles, particularly for interceptor fighters, van der Pijl said in comments carried by TASS.

Perspectives

From the standpoint presented by van der Pijl and relayed by TASS, the current pause is tactical rather than transformative. The expert portrayed Iran as holding a relatively strong negotiating position and therefore unlikely to accept a settlement solely on American terms. He traced contemporary US Middle East policy to a political alignment formed in the 1990s that, in his view, elevated Israeli priorities and reduced European influence on Washington’s decisions. In this framing, any US step toward or away from confrontation with Iran must be read through an “Israeli factor.”

The same expert assessed that both the United States and Israel are likely to treat the two-week window as an opportunity to restore munitions inventories, especially interceptor systems. TASS quoted him as saying this pattern could signal preparation for a possible resumption of the broader standoff even while a short-term ceasefire remains in place.

Official statements summarized in the TASS reports strike a more optimistic note. Trump’s April 7 announcement, as conveyed by the agency, asserted that nearly all contentious issues had been resolved and that Iran’s willingness to keep the Strait of Hormuz open had been decisive. Tehran, according to the same accounts, agreed to halt what it terms “defensive attacks” provided no strikes are launched against Iranian territory. Pakistani mediation is presented as the immediate diplomatic vehicle, with face-to-face talks anticipated on April 10.

Because all available reporting flows through a single news agency’s interviews with one analyst, independent corroboration of van der Pijl’s interpretations is not present in the material. The factual backbone—the ceasefire announcement, the outline of the 10-point proposal, and the Pakistani invitation—appears consistently across the dispatches and is attributed to Trump’s public statements and Iranian state media. The predictive and causal judgments about fragility, Israeli influence, and rearmament remain those of the cited expert.

Temporal context is limited to the days immediately surrounding the April 7 announcement and the April 9 interviews. No corrections or retractions appear in the provided accounts. Further clarity is expected to depend on whether the April 10 talks convene and whether the two-week ceasefire is observed beyond its initial phase.