Reuters' claim that the US and Europe have proposed a two-phase 45-day ceasefire plan brokered by Pakistan, in the context of Iran's deep distrust of Western promises, is more like a tactical maneuver to manage the crisis and buy time on the part of the West than a peaceful initiative. What follows is a critical Mehr News Agency’s editorial’s analysis about the ill-wished aspects, structural flaws, and intentions behind the proposal.
Technical and structural flaws of the proposal
- The proposal has a gross time asymmetry, consisting of two stages:
How can a final agreement on such complex issues as the nuclear program, the lifting of sanctions, and the release of assets be finalized in just 20 days? Such an unrealistic timeframe suggests that the Western side either expects unquestioning acceptance of its demands or has no serious intention of entering into details at all. This design is exactly the opposite of the logic of technical negotiations; first, the framework of the final agreement should be clarified, and then a ceasefire should be implemented as a confidence-builder.
The Western side seeks a ceasefire that reduces its economic and security costs by opening the Strait of Hormuz (lower energy prices, safe passage of oil tankers) but does not provide any practical and immediate guarantees for the lifting of sanctions or the cessation of hostile actions against Iran (such as cyberattacks or assassinations of scientists).
The plan claims that Pakistan is the “sole channel of communication” as well as the “author of the draft memorandum of understanding.” This excessive focus on a third country, which is itself subject to US and Saudi pressure, increases the vulnerability of the plan. The experience of Oman and Qatar’s mediation has shown that any final text should be exchanged directly between Iran and the 4+1 (without the US or with indirect presence). Giving the monopoly of negotiations to a regional actor with a history of conflict of interest violates the principle of transparency.
Potential consequences of accepting the proposal for Iran:
By accepting a 45-day ceasefire, Iran would lose its main deterrence factor which is the control of the Strait of Hormuz and pressure on the global economy. During these 45 days, the West could:
-Change the balance of power in its favor without worrying about Iran’s military or economic response. Also, if a final agreement is not reached, it could simply break the ceasefire and see Iran in a weaker position than before.
We will also see a repeat of the JCPOA experience here. In the JCPOA, Iran first made nuclear concessions and then the sanctions were lifted. But the US showed by unilaterally withdrawing in 2018 that it is not adhering to its commitments. In this proposal, the pattern is worse: Iran must first abandon the tangible result of its deterrence (closing the Strait of Hormuz), then wait 45 days for the US to decide whether to fulfill its commitments or not. This means “first concessions, then promises” – exactly what the martyred leader of the Islamic Revolution repeatedly called unacceptable.
It is clear that after the Strait of Hormuz reopens and oil prices fall, the US and Europe will have less incentive to lift sanctions. Why should they lift crippling sanctions when they have achieved their immediate goal (free flow of oil)? This plan effectively says to Iran: “Pay the ransom, and then maybe we will keep our promises.”
Malicious goals of the American and European parties
Handling public opinion management and elections campaign: Given the approaching US elections and international pressure to stop the war in Gaza and Lebanon, the Trump administration is in dire need of showing off a “diplomatic achievement”. A temporary ceasefire, even without a final agreement, will be shown in the media as a success and reduces the pressure on the part of the public. But this is a show diplomacy, not a lasting solution.
Testing Iran’s endurance: The 45-day offer is essentially a “stress test”. The US wants to know: is Iran willing to open the Strait of Hormuz without guarantees to protect its economy? And can it retreat from its strategic positions in exchange for vague promises? If Iran accepts, it will send a signal of weakness to the West and will face tougher offers in the next stages.
Separating the nuclear issue from regional deterrence: The West seeks to negotiate Iran’s nuclear program separately from Iran’s ability to exert pressure on the Strait of Hormuz and its regional influence through Axis of Resistance. By accepting a ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s trump card in the nuclear negotiations become ineffective. The US ultimate goal is to reach an agreement in which Iran stops enrichment but does not completely lift sanctions – exactly as was proposed in the informal 2022 proposals.
Weakening the Axis of Resistance: Through separate diplomacy mediated by Pakistan and direct negotiations with Iran, the US is trying to bypass the Axis of Resistance (Hezbollah, Houthi Ansarullah, Iraqi resistance groups) without regard to their interests. This is a diplomatic divisiveness to isolate Iran from its regional allies and then going to each one separately.
In any case, the 45-day ceasefire proposal is not a peace plan, but a crisis management tool with short-term benefits for the West, and it is natural that Iran, having gone through bitter experiences such as the JCPOA and two rounds of war in the middle of negotiations, would not fall into the trap of such seemingly compassionate proposals.
MNA/6793008
Your Comment