The Iran Ceasefire: What We Know and What We Don't

On Tuesday, the 7th of April, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” In a war that had seen both sides constantly lob threats at each other across social media, this was among the most severe yet.

Had Trump followed through and destroyed Iran’s power plants and infrastructure, it would have represented the single greatest use of American military power since perhaps World War II and fundamentally reshaped the global order. The threat landed as the clock wound down toward an 8 pm Eastern deadline Trump had imposed on Iran to make a deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran seemed more than happy to answer in kind. In a statement shared with the press, it promised to target the infrastructure of America and its allies in the region with such destructive force that they would be unable to access the Middle East’s oil for years. According to the state-run Tehran Times, Iran also cut off all diplomatic and indirect communication channels with Washington. As the hours ticked by, the world waited.

Key Takeaways

President Trump announced a two-week, double-sided ceasefire at 6:32 pm Eastern on 7 April, suspending strikes on Iran subject to the complete, immediate, and safe reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Two competing plans anchor the talks: a 15-point US proposal demanding Iran dismantle its three main nuclear sites, and a 10-point Iranian plan insisting on continued uranium enrichment and control of the Strait.
Crushing pressure drove both sides to the table: economic collapse, military losses, and diplomatic mediation led by Pakistan and backed by China for Iran; political, economic, and electoral risks for Washington.
Israel’s continued operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Netanyahu insists are excluded from the deal, remain a major sticking point because Iran demanded a ceasefire on all fronts.
The human cost has been staggering: 3,540 killed in Iran, 1,461 in Lebanon, around 30 in Israel, 13 US service members, and dozens more across the Gulf.

Then, at 6:32 pm Eastern, with less than ninety minutes to spare, Trump posted again, this time announcing a ceasefire. After a conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and subject to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, he had agreed to suspend the bombing for two weeks. The central question is no longer whether cooler heads prevailed, but whether this fragile pause will actually hold.

A Double-Sided Ceasefire, Two Conflicting Stories

In his Truth Social post, Trump said America had met and exceeded its military objectives, that it had received a 10-point proposal from Iran, and that it considered that proposal a workable basis from which to negotiate. He added that almost all the various points of contention between Iran and the United States had been agreed during the ongoing talks.

That framing matters, because Iran told a very different story. The Supreme National Security Council, the country’s top security body, claimed it had forced the United States to accept its 10-point plan and described the ceasefire as an enduring defeat for Washington. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was more measured, saying Washington had accepted the general framework of Iran’s 10-point proposal while Iran in turn weighed a 15-point proposal from the US.

These two competing documents sit at the heart of the negotiations now underway. From what is publicly known, they are vastly different, and each contains points the other side has previously rejected. According to Axios, a US official who saw the 10-point plan called it maximalist, diplomatic shorthand for unrealistic and extreme. Al Jazeera reported that Iran used the same word for the 15-point American plan, with sources in Tehran describing it as extremely unreasonable, deceptive, and misleading.

Inside the Two Plans

The full details of America’s 15-point plan are not public, but reporting outlines its core. The deal calls on Iran to dismantle its three main nuclear sites and end all enrichment on Iranian soil, suspend its ballistic-missile programme, curb support for proxies, and fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Iran would see nuclear-related sanctions lifted, and the US would assist in monitoring the country’s civilian nuclear program. The plan broadly mirrors the proposal Washington discussed with Iran before the war began on 28 February, when Trump accused Tehran of not negotiating in good faith.

Iran’s plan is publicly available, shared by Nour News, an outlet supported by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Its proposals include a fundamental US commitment to non-aggression, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions against Iran and against foreign entities doing business with it, and the payment of reparations for damages incurred during the war. Most importantly, the plan demands that Washington accept Iran’s right to enrich uranium for its nuclear program.

The Gulf Between Them

Watch on WarFronts

Watch the full video analysis on the WarFronts YouTube channel, presented by Simon Whistler.

You don’t have to be a genius at pattern recognition to spot the gaps. The first is the nuclear programme. Washington’s best-case scenario sees Iran completely dismantle it; failing that, the US would accept a civilian programme heavily monitored from Washington. For Iran, such monitoring is a major breach of the sovereignty that has been a core component of how Tehran has framed this entire war.

Second is Iran’s ballistic-missile programme. Iran’s 10-point plan does not mention missiles at all, while Washington has signaled it wants, at minimum, to limit the number and range of missiles Iran can field. Tehran is likely to read this as an attack on its sovereignty and an attempt to blunt its ability to retaliate if the ceasefire, or any future agreement, collapses.

That fear is real. America and Israel previously struck Iran in the middle of negotiations the Iranian side believed were going well. Tehran has also watched Israel violate its ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza multiple times, taking it as proof that the two parties cannot be trusted to keep their word.

Lebanon: The Unresolved Front

Israel’s conduct in Lebanon has become another flashpoint between Washington and Tehran. In his statement announcing the ceasefire, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said it would include Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuted that, insisting the ceasefire did not cover Lebanon, where Israel has been conducting operations against Hezbollah.

Before the ceasefire was announced, the IDF issued evacuation warnings for Lebanese residents in Tyre and Shabriha as it prepared strikes against Hezbollah, instructing residents to move north of the Al-Zahrani River. Complicating matters, Al Jazeera reported that Hezbollah announced it would abide by the ceasefire. Yet according to the Jerusalem Post, the IDF’s 98th Commando Division had joined ground operations in Lebanon before the announcement, an indication that Israel has little interest in ending those operations soon.

For Iran, this is a major sticking point, because it explicitly called for a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon. For now, how Israel’s continued operations there will affect the broader deal remains unknown.

The Question of US Troops

Iran has also demanded that American forces in the region be withdrawn. From Tehran’s vantage point this makes obvious sense; few would want their most hated enemy living next door. For Washington, however, keeping troops in the region is essential to ensuring Iran does not back out of the deal.

There is also the matter of the neighbors. It is hard to imagine the exit of US troops being welcomed in the Gulf States, which still regard the American presence as something of a security guarantee, even after the events of the last few weeks. The competing plans may be miles apart, but what is not in doubt is that both Tehran and Washington have agreed to a ceasefire and are actively weighing each other’s proposals. The question is why.

The Pressure on Iran

To understand the shift, consider the pressure each side was under. For Iran, Trump’s previous threats had proven credible despite the times he walked them back, so Tehran treated his most recent threats, to destroy its bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure, as a promise of what would follow if it did not play ball.

The threat was so severe that some observers, including an X account linked to Kamala Harris’s failed 2024 presidential bid, declared Trump was signaling the potential use of nuclear weapons, particularly after Vice President JD Vance said during a visit to Hungary that the US had tools in its toolkit it had not yet decided to use. The White House swiftly rejected the idea of a nuclear strike, but the ambiguity underscored the scale of what Washington was prepared to threaten.

The military pressure was not only American. Tehran was also absorbing Israeli attacks on its transport infrastructure, including bridges and railways.

Economic Collapse

Beyond the immediate military danger, Iran faced mounting economic pressure. Even before the war, its economy was in such a poor state that it had triggered one of the largest public protests in the country’s history. Miad Maleki, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Treasury Department official, wrote on X that Iran’s liquidity crisis had grown so severe that banks were running out of physical banknotes daily, with informal withdrawal caps of just $18 to $30 per day.

The war only accelerated the collapse. According to Fortune, prices continued to spiral as the conflict boosted demand for cash. Inflation grew so severe that the government issued its largest-ever currency denomination, the 10 million rial note, worth roughly $7.40. Analysts at Chatham House estimated Iran’s GDP would shrink by 10 percent because of the war. Economically and militarily, in other words, Iran was looking at a situation experts have termed FUBAR.

Diplomatic Pressure and the China Factor

Tehran was also facing pressure from its closest partners. Pakistan, which maintains long-standing ties with both Washington and Tehran, had been working behind the scenes for weeks to bring the two to the table. According to Al Jazeera, Islamabad led a multinational effort that included the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, who met in Islamabad on 30 March. The meeting produced a joint five-point initiative calling for an immediate ceasefire, urgent diplomatic engagement, and the restoration of normal maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

More importantly, China threw its weight behind Pakistan’s mediation. On 31 March, Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar traveled to Beijing to meet Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and according to Axios the five-point proposal came together during that visit. China’s special Middle East envoy also traveled to the region, with Beijing framing the war as a structural shock to the world economy and pressing for an immediate halt to operations.

As Iran’s top trade partner and the largest importer of Iranian oil, China holds considerable sway in Tehran. Two Chinese officials told the Associated Press that Beijing had stayed in contact with Tehran throughout, carrying one consistent message: the war needed to end.

The Pressure on Washington

For Washington the pressure was different but no less real. The economic costs were mounting, with oil prices surging and inflation concerns growing. There was also the diplomatic reality that rejecting a Pakistan-China mediated proposal would have handed Beijing a major geopolitical victory, casting it as the responsible actor seeking to prevent escalation while Washington appeared inflexible.

The political calendar weighed heavily. With midterm elections months away, the war had become a liability for Trump’s Republican Party. According to Emerson College Polling, 47 percent of likely voters opposed US military action in Iran while only 40 percent supported it. Trump’s approval rating had fallen to 42 percent, with 51 percent disapproving, and Democrats led the generic congressional ballot 49 to 42.

According to CNN, roughly 24 percent of Trump’s 2024 voters disapproved of his handling of Iran, with 15 percent strongly disapproving.

Veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse warned of an ugly November. Party leaders who had seen a path to preserving their narrow House majority now privately conceded the House was all but lost and that Democrats had a realistic shot at the Senate. The war had also split the Republican coalition, with influential conservatives questioning whether the conflict was being fought on Israel’s behalf rather than for American interests.

Retaliation, Perception, and the Cost of Escalation

Washington also had to weigh Iranian retaliation. Despite America and Israel’s best efforts, Tehran retained its ability to strike US allies across the region and disrupt global energy markets. Iran proved it by hitting the Ras Laffan gas plant in Qatar, taking more than 3.5 percent of the world’s LNG supplies offline, in response to an Israeli strike on Iran’s South Pars gasfield. An American escalation would have pushed Iran to the edge.

There was also a perception problem. Trump had built his brand on projecting strength and securing deals, yet the war had dragged on for more than five weeks with no clear end. His threat that a whole civilization would die risked undermining his credibility if he failed to follow through, while actually carrying out such an attack would have reshaped the global order and likely triggered widespread international condemnation. A ceasefire with mutual concessions was, in this light, the best available outcome for everyone.

The remaining question is whether it was worth it.

Was It Worth It?

For the US and Israel, the answer depends on how you measure success. Both significantly degraded Iran’s military. According to Al Jazeera, hundreds of Iranian missile launchers have been rendered inoperable, with some reports suggesting 80 percent of Iran’s capacity to strike Israel has been eliminated. Iran’s naval assets, including fast-attack craft, midget submarines, and mine-laying capabilities, were destroyed, and the campaign suppressed air defenses to the point where the US was flying non-stealth B-1 bombers over Iranian airspace by mid-March.

Washington and Jerusalem also eliminated senior Iranian figures who had long been thorns in their side, including Ali Khamenei, the former Supreme Leader; Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council; and Gholamreza Soleimani, commander of the paramilitary Basij forces. For Israel, the war created an opening to expand operations in Lebanon and build a security zone along its northern border.

Iran, for its part, struck American allies across the region, hitting military bases, embassies, and energy infrastructure. Those attacks raised questions about America’s ability to protect its regional partners and whether Gulf states might one day seek security guarantees elsewhere.

The Strait, the Regime, and the Human Cost

Then there is the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war, it was open, with hundreds of ships transiting annually. Closing it was meant to make the war as economically painful for the world as possible, and Iran achieved that.

More importantly from Tehran’s perspective, Iran can now levy tolls on transiting ships, a revenue stream that may outlast the war itself. According to Reuters, Iran could make as much as $120 billion a year until oil and gas producing nations build pipelines to bypass the Strait. Danny Citrinowicz, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, wrote on Twitter that relinquishing control of it is increasingly seen as comparable to giving up the nuclear program or missile capabilities, something Tehran would go to any length to protect.

Perhaps most importantly, the regime survived. Despite the deaths of Khamenei, Larijani, and other senior officials, the Islamic Republic appointed a new supreme leader, Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei, and maintained its command structure. The system Washington and Jerusalem hoped to topple remains intact.

The human cost has been staggering. According to the US-based organization Human Rights Activists In Iran (HRANA), 3,540 people have been killed in Iran since the war began. In Lebanon, authorities report 1,461 killed in Israeli strikes since 2 March. Across Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, and other countries, dozens more died in Iranian attacks and related incidents. In Israel, about 30 people have died, including 10 soldiers killed in Southern Lebanon, and Washington has lost 13 service members.

A Chance, If Diplomacy Is Given Space

So, was it worth it? It depends entirely on who you ask. For Washington and Jerusalem, key military objectives have been achieved, and Tehran is unlikely to pose a threat for years. For Tehran, the regime’s survival and its control over the Strait are significant victories. But for the people caught in the middle and the economies battered by soaring fuel prices, the answer is almost certainly no.

Had Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran negotiated in good faith back in February, the worst of this could have been avoided. Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, a key mediator throughout, told CBS that a peace deal was within reach and that the world needed to give diplomacy the space to get there. It is hard not to wonder how different the Middle East would look today had the powers that be heeded his call.

Even so, the ceasefire offers a chance to end the fighting before further escalation. Whether it holds depends entirely on whether all the warring parties negotiate in good faith when talks begin in Islamabad on Friday. If they do not, then the world is, to borrow a phrase, FUBAR.

Presented by

Simon Whistler

Simon Whistler is one of YouTube's most prolific educational creators. WarFronts is his deep dive into military history and conflict analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did President Trump announce on 7 April?

At 6:32 pm Eastern, Trump posted on Truth Social that, following a conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and subject to Iran agreeing to the complete, immediate, and safe reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, he had agreed to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for two weeks. It was framed as a double-sided ceasefire to give the warring parties time to formalize a peace deal.

How do the US and Iranian peace plans differ?

The US 15-point plan calls on Iran to dismantle its three main nuclear sites, end all enrichment, suspend its ballistic-missile programme, curb support for proxies, and fully reopen the Strait, in exchange for sanctions relief and a monitored civilian nuclear program. Iran’s 10-point plan demands a US commitment to non-aggression, Iranian control of the Strait, lifted sanctions, war reparations, and acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium.

Why did both sides move toward a deal despite months of escalation?

Iran faced converging military, economic, and diplomatic pressure: Israeli and American strikes, a liquidity crisis with banks running out of banknotes, record inflation, and mediation pushed by Pakistan and China. Washington faced surging oil prices, the risk of handing Beijing a geopolitical win, falling poll numbers, a fracturing Republican coalition, and the danger of Iranian retaliation against US allies across the region.

Is Lebanon covered by the ceasefire?

That is disputed. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the ceasefire would include Lebanon, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted it did not, and Israel continued operations against Hezbollah. The IDF issued evacuation warnings for Tyre and Shabriha and its 98th Commando Division joined ground operations there, even as Hezbollah announced it would abide by the ceasefire.

How significant is Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz?

Iran can now levy tolls on ships transiting the Strait, potentially earning as much as $120 billion a year, according to Reuters, until other nations build bypass pipelines. Analysts say relinquishing control is increasingly viewed in Tehran as comparable to surrendering its nuclear program or missile capabilities, making it one of the hardest points for any final deal to resolve.