Donald Trump’s team has, in recent weeks, begun to show clear signs of recalibration. Earlier assumptions appear to have been reassessed. Positions once shaped by overconfidence now seem to be giving way to a search for an exit. In such circumstances, Iran needed to pause and test whether these shifts would translate into tangible changes in US policy.
Tehran – IranView24
Tehran’s decision to accept a temporary halt to the war is therefore not only timely but courageous. It is also, by any reasonable measure, a politically and militarily confident move. Credit belongs both to the country’s leadership and to a public that has absorbed the costs of the conflict.
The clearest account of what has transpired has come from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. His statement sets out the framework with notable precision. Its subsequent repost by the US president effectively underscores that Washington has, at least in broad terms, accepted Iran’s framing.
Araghchi referred explicitly to “the US request for negotiations on its 15-point proposal” and to the American president’s declaration of “acceptance in principle of Iran’s 10-point proposal.” These two drafts, he noted, will form the basis of talks expected to take place in Pakistan. Speaking “on behalf of the National Security Council,” he further stated that “1. if attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran cease, our powerful armed forces will also halt their defensive operations,” and “2. for a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible in coordination with Iran’s armed forces and with due regard to existing technical constraints.”
This matters. The ceasefire deal is not an ad hoc decision. It reflects a consensus reached at the highest level of Iran’s political and military structure. At this stage, what will matter most is whether that decision is backed across the domestic political spectrum. Such support could prove decisive in shaping the outcome of the negotiations that follow.
The rationale behind Iran’s move is rooted in the logic of war itself. Conflicts evolve. As they do, both sides reassess their positions. At certain points, maximalist demands give way to a degree of realism. Over the past two weeks, the Trump administration has signaled precisely such a shift. Iran’s decision to hold back and test the durability of these changes reflects a calculated approach. The negotiations ahead will reveal whether battlefield realities have stripped away what Tehran sees as earlier illusions, shaped in part by hardline Israeli influence.
Iranian officials have consistently argued that any halt must be tied to assurances against renewed aggression. While such thinking reflects a desire to avoid a return to hostilities or a prolonged “no war, no peace” situation, history offers a more cautious lesson. The 1994 assurances given to Ukraine, signed by Russia, the United States and Britain, ultimately failed to prevent conflict.
Deterrence, by contrast, rests on capability. During the current conflict, Iran imposed restrictions on movement through the Strait of Hormuz in response to the unlawful aggression. The result was instructive. It demonstrated that reopening the waterway by force would not be straightforward. Iran’s asymmetric capabilities altered the equation. That experience may now serve as a more credible form of guarantee than any written commitment.
The costs of the past forty days have been substantial. Iran has absorbed both material damage and psychological strain from the US-Israeli war. The prospect of escalation, particularly into attacks on infrastructure, would have significantly raised those costs. Under continued sanctions and financial pressure, recovery would have been difficult to sustain in the short term.
There is also a regional dimension that cannot be ignored. Given the largely air-based nature of the conflict and the geographic distance separating Iran from its adversaries, retaliation would likely have focused on assets in neighboring countries. Such a path would have risked entangling regional actors more deeply and complicating efforts to rebuild relations with them.
It is expected that, following a positive turn of events after a difficult period, Iran’s foreign policy will enter a new phase. This would pave the way for rebuilding what has been damaged and advancing the country’s development and people’s well-being, particularly given the upcoming diplomatic changes.
Source: Iran Daily
