With the world sitting on a knife-edge over US President Donald Trump's issuance of a deadline where he vowed to "end" a civilisation, the announcement of a two-week-long ceasefire just hours before the deadline expired on Wednesday morning (IST) has come as a huge relief worldwide.
Predictably, both sides have projected the ceasefire as a victory.
The ceasefire is based on Pakistani mediation and on Iran's 10-point proposal, which Trump says has "a workable basis".
While the US has assured that it would desist from striking Iran's power plants and bridges for the duration of the ceasefire, Iran's position is striking.
Expressly stating that Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz is an important condition for the ceasefire, Iran's Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said: "For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran's Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations."
Implicit in Araghchi's statement is a significant strategic victory for Iran. This is because, by default, it sets the basis for Iranian control of the vital Strait of Hormuz—something Iran has been eyeing for a long time. The ceasefire pact sets the tone for that.
ALSO READ:
- Behind the scenes: How Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei secured Iran-US ceasefire
- ‘Self-styled Vishwaguru exposed’: Congress takes a jibe at Modi over Pakistan’s role in US-Iran ceasefire
- Diplomacy takes centre stage: Two-week truce announced by Trump amidst global market relief
- How China’s behind-the-scenes role helped secure US-Iran ceasefire
The terms of the ceasefire have not only legitimised Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz but have also tilted the forthcoming negotiations decisively in favour of Iran. Tehran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz will be an important tool to influence Asian and European economies, forcing them to re-initiate trade ties with Iran or risk jeopardising their energy security.
Prof. Kumar Sanjay Singh, who teaches history at a Delhi University college, says: "Iranian successes in this clash with the US-Israeli coalition is a demonstration of asymmetric engagement militarily, economically, and diplomatically. Iranian manoeuvres are a veritable guide for the countries of the Global South on how to convert their weakness into strength when challenged by the economically and militarily powerful West."
Secondly, Iran's growing control over the narrow Strait will also give it a handle to economically leverage its ties with East Asian nations that had ceased trade with Iran in adherence to US-imposed sanctions.
Thirdly, with the decline in the efficacy of US military might to determine negotiations, it is reasonable to conclude that the Iranian stand on the Strait cannot be ignored in the post-war settlement. The Gulf nations and Israel will have to live with the reality of a resurgent Iran and the rise of the Iran-Russia-China axis in West Asia.
Fourthly, even on the diplomatic front, Iran has secured a distinct strategic advantage. It is a well-known fact that the terms of negotiations have a significant impact on the outcome. In this backdrop, Iranian success in setting the terms of its negotiations with the US is decisive. It is not entirely fortuitous that Araghchi unequivocally stated that the acceptance of the two-week ceasefire was contingent on Trump’s acceptance “of the general framework of Iran’s 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiations”.
