The announcement of a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran—reportedly facilitated through discreet diplomatic channels involving Pakistan—has been framed as a breakthrough moment in a rapidly escalating conflict. Yet, beneath this momentary calm lies a complex web of contradictions, mistrust, and competing geopolitical interests that render any such agreement inherently unstable.
This is not merely a story of two adversaries attempting reconciliation; rather, it is a reflection of a deeply fractured regional order where external actors, proxy conflicts, economic chokepoints, and domestic politics collectively undermine the prospects of long-term peace. The critical question is not whether the deal will hold—but why it is structurally designed to fail.
A Ceasefire Without Trust: The Core Structural Weakness
At the heart of the US–Iran deal lies a fundamental absence of trust. Unlike traditional peace agreements built on gradual confidence-building measures, this ceasefire emerged under intense military pressure and diplomatic urgency. The involvement of Pakistan as an intermediary—operating through a “small circle” of negotiators—highlights the sensitivity and fragility of the process.
However, the historical trajectory of US–Iran relations casts a long shadow over any agreement. Decades of hostility, sanctions, covert operations, and broken commitments have created a deeply entrenched skepticism on both sides. For Washington, Iran remains a destabilizing force in the Middle East, while for Tehran, the United States is seen as an unreliable actor prone to policy reversals.
This mutual distrust transforms the agreement into a temporary tactical pause rather than a strategic settlement, where both sides remain prepared for escalation even during de-escalation.
Pakistan’s Mediation: Diplomacy Under Constraints
Pakistan’s role in facilitating communication between Washington and Tehran has been pivotal but limited. Its unique position—maintaining historical ties with Iran while also engaging closely with the United States and Saudi Arabia—allowed it to act as a conduit for messages during a critical phase of the conflict.
Yet, mediation under such conditions is inherently constrained. Pakistan is not a neutral actor; its defense relationship with Saudi Arabia and its strategic calculations influence its diplomatic posture. The criticism from Pakistani leadership regarding Iranian actions—particularly attacks on Saudi Arabia—demonstrates that even mediators carry their own geopolitical biases.
Moreover, mediation can initiate dialogue but cannot enforce compliance. The invitation to host further negotiations reflects optimism, but without mechanisms to ensure accountability, the process risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Israel’s Strategic Calculus: Disrupting the Framework
One of the most significant challenges to the sustainability of the US–Iran deal comes from Israel’s uncompromising security doctrine. For Israeli policymakers, Iran represents an existential threat, not merely a geopolitical rival. This perception fundamentally clashes with any diplomatic framework that allows Iran to retain its military or nuclear capabilities.
Recent military actions by Israel during ongoing negotiations underscore a critical reality: regional actors are not bound by bilateral agreements they do not endorse. Israel’s strategy is rooted in preemption, aiming to weaken Iran’s capabilities before they reach a critical threshold.
This creates a structural dilemma for the United States. While Washington may seek de-escalation to avoid a broader war, it cannot fully align with Israeli objectives without abandoning diplomatic engagement. The result is a fragmented approach where allies pursue divergent strategies, undermining the coherence of any agreement.
Arab States and the Politics of Exclusion
The reaction of Arab Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, adds another layer of complexity. While these states publicly support de-escalation, their actions and strategic concerns reveal a deep unease with the US–Iran deal.
Iran’s continued military actions—such as missile or drone attacks on Saudi territory—during the negotiation phase reinforce the perception that Tehran is negotiating from a position of aggression rather than compromise. For Gulf states, this raises critical questions about the reliability of any agreement that does not directly address their security concerns.
Furthermore, the perception of exclusion from key negotiations fosters resentment. Regional powers that are directly affected by Iran’s policies feel sidelined in a process dominated by external actors. This dynamic weakens the legitimacy of the agreement and increases the likelihood of independent actions that could derail the deal.
The Strait of Hormuz: A Geopolitical Pressure Point
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most critical—and contentious—elements in the US–Iran equation. As a vital corridor for global oil shipments, its stability is essential for the world economy. However, Iran’s strategic view of the strait differs sharply from that of the United States and its allies.
For Tehran, the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a trade route but a powerful bargaining tool. The suggestion that Iran keep the strait open temporarily during negotiations underscores its use as leverage. For the United States and global markets, however, uninterrupted access is non-negotiable.
This divergence creates a persistent tension where economic stability is held hostage to geopolitical strategy. Any future crisis could see the strait once again become a focal point of confrontation, undermining the foundations of the deal.
Proxy Warfare: The Conflict Beneath the Surface
Even in the absence of direct confrontation, the US–Iran rivalry continues through an extensive network of proxy actors. From militia groups in the Middle East to aligned political factions, these indirect channels of conflict ensure that tensions remain active.
This layer of warfare operates beyond the scope of formal agreements. A ceasefire between states does not automatically translate into restraint among proxies. On the contrary, these groups often act autonomously, driven by local dynamics and strategic incentives.
As a result, the region experiences a paradoxical reality: official peace coexists with ongoing conflict. Any escalation involving proxies can quickly spiral into direct confrontation, rendering the ceasefire ineffective.
Domestic Political Pressures: The Invisible Fault Line
The sustainability of the US–Iran deal is also deeply influenced by internal political dynamics within both countries. In the United States, Iran policy remains a contentious issue, subject to shifts in administration and partisan politics. A change in leadership could lead to a reversal of commitments, undermining the credibility of the agreement.
In Iran, the balance of power between moderates and hardliners shapes the country’s diplomatic posture. Engagement with the United States is often viewed with suspicion, and any perceived concession can trigger domestic backlash.
These internal pressures create an environment where international agreements are vulnerable to domestic contestation, limiting their durability.
Global Power Shifts: The Multipolar Challenge
The evolving global order further complicates the US–Iran dynamic. Iran’s growing ties with major powers such as China and Russia provide it with alternative avenues for economic and strategic cooperation. This reduces its dependence on engagement with the United States and weakens the incentives to fully commit to any agreement.
For Washington, this represents a broader strategic challenge. Efforts to isolate Iran may inadvertently push it closer to rival powers, while engagement risks alienating regional allies.
This multipolar context ensures that the US–Iran deal is not merely a bilateral issue but part of a larger geopolitical contest, where global rivalries intersect with regional conflicts.
A Deal Defined by Contradictions
The US–Iran ceasefire, despite its immediate significance, is fundamentally constrained by a series of structural contradictions. It is an agreement shaped by urgency rather than alignment, by pressure rather than trust.
The opposition from Israel, skepticism among Arab states, ongoing proxy conflicts, and shifting global alliances all contribute to an environment where stability is elusive. At the same time, domestic political uncertainties in both countries further erode the foundation of the deal.
Ultimately, the agreement represents a temporary convergence of interests rather than a lasting resolution. Without a broader, inclusive framework that addresses the concerns of all regional stakeholders and establishes mechanisms for trust and accountability, the US–Iran deal is likely to remain fragile—a pause in conflict, not an end to it.
