Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long

Bowen: Ceasefire means respite for civilians, but it might not last long

Within a single day, Donald Trump transitioned from warning that Iran’s civilization would collapse to endorsing its ten-point plan as a viable framework for talks in Pakistan. The ceasefire, initially aimed at offering a brief reprieve, has spared many civilians from the ongoing violence that erupted after the U.S. and Israel targeted Iran on February 28. However, this relief has not extended to Lebanon, which was struck by a significant and lethal series of air raids following Israel’s insistence that the agreement did not cover its territory.

The temporary pause in hostilities may not endure. While both Iran and the U.S. have compelling motivations to conclude the conflict, their publicly stated stances remain significantly divergent. A U.S. vice-president recently labeled the truce as “fragile,” a perspective that aligns with the reality of the situation. Yet, each side simultaneously claims triumph, with Trump’s backers asserting that the damage inflicted on Iran compelled it to seek negotiations. In contrast, Iranian officials argue that their resilience and ability to sustain military operations have pressured the U.S. into accepting their terms.

The ten-point plan, now central to discussions, includes demands that challenge U.S. interests. These proposals, such as Iran’s claim to control the Strait of Hormuz and its insistence on reparations, may be as difficult for Americans to accept as they are for Iran. The U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, called the outcome a “capital V military victory,” emphasizing Iran’s inability to defend itself. Tehran, however, sees the conflict as a catalyst for its rise, with a top aide stating on social media that “the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun.”

Iran’s strategic leverage has grown, particularly through its control of the Strait of Hormuz. Before the attack, international vessels moved through the waterway unimpeded. Now, Iran asserts it will allow ships to pass during the ceasefire, provided their routes are synchronized with military oversight. This could lead to new tolls for traders, similar to those at the Suez Canal. Meanwhile, Israel, which did not participate in the ceasefire negotiations, continues to seek greater damage. Prime Minister Netanyahu, facing criticism in an election year, is accused of allowing the conflict to escalate despite his commitment to securing Iran’s downfall.

Amid these tensions, the path to a lasting agreement remains uncertain. The upcoming talks in Islamabad may mirror previous efforts in Geneva, where progress stalled before the renewed assault on Iran. As the situation evolves, the question remains: will the ceasefire hold, or will the cycle of conflict resume, leaving civilians once again vulnerable to the consequences of geopolitical maneuvering?