US, Iran agree to two-week ceasefire as Trump pulls back on his threats

Lead

The United States and Iran agreed to a conditional two-week ceasefire on April 8, halting 40 days of US-Israeli military strikes on Iran, just hours before a deadline set by President Donald Trump to obliterate the country's 'civilisation' was set to expire. The truce, mediated by Pakistan, includes the temporary reopening of the vital Strait of Hormuz, a key passageway for one-fifth of the world's oil and gas, which Iran had effectively closed in retaliation for the war that began on February 28.

Both sides have claimed victory. Trump, in an interview with AFP, called the deal a "total and complete victory" for the US, while Iran's Supreme National Security Council said the enemy had suffered "an undeniable, historic and crushing defeat" in its "cowardly, illegal and criminal war against the Iranian nation". Negotiations are expected to begin in Islamabad on Friday, with Iran's 10-point peace proposal as the basis for talks.

However, less than 24 hours after the ceasefire took effect, Iran and the US were already publicly at odds over its terms, particularly regarding the scope of the truce, the reopening of the Strait, and the content of Iran's plan. The fragility of the deal was underscored by continued Israeli strikes in Lebanon, which have killed more than 1,500 people since the war began, and which Israel says are not covered by the ceasefire.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting on the ceasefire has varied significantly across outlets, reflecting a range of perspectives and emphases. Australian public broadcaster ABC Australia presented the deal as a sign that Iran, not the US, had set the ground rules for negotiations, with one article headlined around Trump "ceding ground" to Tehran. Al Jazeera, in its multiple articles, framed the ceasefire as a "life-saving ejection seat" for the US and Israel, while also providing on-the-ground accounts from Tehran and detailed explanations of the deal's terms. The BBC offered a measured "what we know" roundup, emphasizing the provisional nature of the truce. Pakistani newspaper Dawn focused on the legal architecture needed to make the ceasefire durable, while also publishing an analysis that saw Iran as having won a defining battle. US outlet Fox News highlighted the potential dealbreaker of Hezbollah's exclusion from the ceasefire, quoting experts who argued that Iran's demands were "ridiculous". France 24, The Guardian, and The Hindu all carried critical assessments of the deal and Trump's claims of victory, with The Atlantic's commentary being cited on the "hollow" nature of his achievements. South China Morning Post reported that analysts considered the US the "strategic loser" of the conflict.

Key Claims

According to multiple sources, the ceasefire was brokered by Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who announced the deal on X, stating that Iran, the US "and their allies" had agreed to an immediate ceasefire "everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere". Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said he had agreed to "suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks" if Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz, claiming "we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives".

Iran's 10-point proposal, as reported by Iranian state media and summarized by outlets including Al Jazeera, the BBC, and the Jerusalem Post, includes demands for a US commitment to non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of Iran's uranium enrichment, lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, termination of UN Security Council and IAEA resolutions against Iran, payment of war damages, US military withdrawal from the region, an end to attacks on Iran and its allies, and release of frozen Iranian assets. A point calling for acceptance of enrichment appeared in the Farsi version of the plan but was absent from the English translation shared with the UN, according to France 24 and The Guardian.

Trump initially called the 10-point plan "workable", but later, in a post on Truth Social, dismissed publicized versions as "fraudsters, charlatans and worse". Vice President JD Vance went further, calling the published document "a random yahoo in Iran submitting it to public access television". A New York Times report, citing a US official, said the terms of the Iranian-released plan do not match those seen by the president. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the initial plan was "thrown in the garbage" and that a "revised, more reasonable" plan had been received, while also reiterating the president's red line on enrichment: "There will be no enrichment of Uranium."

On the nuclear issue, Iran's nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami was quoted by ISNA as saying "no law enforcement or person would be able to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program", and that the ceasefire request "indicates their defeat". Trump, however, wrote on Truth Social that the US would, "working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried ... Nuclear 'Dust.'" He also mentioned "very productive regime change."

The question of Lebanon has emerged as a major point of contention. Pakistan's Sharif said the ceasefire includes Lebanon, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal does not cover Israel's fight against Hezbollah. Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued throughout Wednesday and Thursday, leading Iran's foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, to warn that the US "must choose — ceasefire or continued war via Israel."

Perspectives

The ceasefire has been met with a range of international reactions. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, welcomed the truce while urging a permanent end to hostilities, with Macron calling for Lebanon to be included in the deal. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was more pointed, saying his administration "will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket."

In the US, opinion pages have been highly critical of Trump. The Atlantic described his victory claims as "hollow", arguing the conflict gave him none of his intended gains. Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, accused Netanyahu of dragging the US into an "unwarranted and reckless adventure". An analysis of Truth Social posts by the New York Times reportedly found MAGA supporters turning on Trump over the ceasefire.

Analysts have noted that the US, despite its military superiority, emerged as the "strategic loser" of the conflict, with gains limited to a fragile ceasefire and conditional Hormuz passage. The Hindu, in an editorial, argued that "far from weakening Iran, the U.S.-Israel war has left it strategically stronger," and that "the ceasefire is only a beginning. Wide gaps remain."

Legal experts have pointed out that ceasefires without a legal framework risk collapsing. An editorial in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper emphasized the need for a legally binding agreement, citing ICJ jurisprudence and historical precedents such as the Algiers Accords. The Guardian noted that the US ultimatum to bomb power plants and bridges was considered by legal experts to "constitute war crimes" under international law.