Posted on 04/09/2026 7:25:33 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A ceasefire hailed as victory masks deep uncertainty—fragmented leadership, conflicting terms, and Iran’s track record all suggest the pause may only delay the next escalation.
On Tuesday evening, with less than two hours remaining before U.S. President Donald Trump’s deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or be bombed “back to the Stone Ages,” he announced a mutual ceasefire.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, “a victory for the United States that President Trump and our incredible military made happen.” Eli Lake of The Free Press claims that “America has won twice” by getting Iran’s commitment to reopen the Strait and by avoiding “an insane atrocity against the people he promised to liberate.”
However, I have four reasons for doubt.
First, Iran might not have the intent or capacity to implement the ceasefire.
Second, Iran might use the ceasefire to retrench and reorganize for war.
Third, even if the ceasefire holds, Iran and the U.S. have wildly different versions of their respective proposals.
Fourth, Iran has publicly ruled out most U.S. demands, partly to mobilize restive Iranians against foreigners supposedly intent on their destruction.
Trump’s post says the ceasefire is “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.” This is something the Iranian regime might not have the intent or capacity to achieve.
Iran’s regime is decimated and confused.
Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, was assassinated within the first 24 hours of the current series of U.S.–Israeli strikes (February 28). His successor (Mojtaba) was not appointed until the second week and hasn’t been seen in public, either because he was incapacitated in a separate air strike or because the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) has taken control. (He is unconscious, says a leaked diplomatic memo, although such a leak might be disinformation.) Various other principals have been killed in air strikes, most recently Iran’s intelligence chief (on Sunday). American political scientist Charles Lipson reports that “American negotiators cannot be certain who is really in charge in Tehran.”
Whoever is in charge in Tehran, they might not be able to restrain the IRGC. Iranian missiles and drones continued to attack Israeli and Arab states after the deal was announced.
U.S. intelligence estimates that about a third of Iran’s missiles are destroyed, a third damaged or buried, and a third ready. Iran’s navy has suffered similar rates of loss. Iran’s launch sites and launch rate have decreased. But Iran retains the capability to attack neighboring countries and ships in the strait.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted a statement on behalf of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council that appears to agree to a ceasefire but adds caveats on the strait.
“If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease their defensive operations. For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible through coordination with Iran’s armed forces and with due consideration to technical limitations.”
In other words, Iran’s foreign minister cannot guarantee safe passage through the strait.
Second, Iran might use the ceasefire to retrench and reorganize for war.
Foreign correspondent Amy Kellogg reports the real-time reaction of a friend in Iran, who said that regime loyalists “will spend the next two weeks making missiles. More to shoot at the Gulf and everywhere else . . . They are already out in the streets celebrating.”
Multiple times, Iran has ignored deadlines for an end to hostilities in this war alone.
And don’t forget that Iranian policy has included “death to America,” Israel, and Britain (usually in that order) since the Islamist revolution 47 years ago. It has demonstrated untrustworthiness more often than not. Why should we trust it in two weeks’ time?
Third, Iran and the U.S. offer wildly different versions of their respective proposals, which hardly suggests optimism for an agreement within two weeks.
For a start, the ceasefire was initiated by Pakistan. Secondarily, China added some pressure on Iran. Trump made his announcement three hours after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had announced on X that diplomatic efforts toward a U.S.–Iran agreement were “progressing steadily, strongly, and powerfully.”
This final-hours diplomacy came four days after Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey sent a proposal to the U.S. and Iranian governments for Iran to cease attacks in the Strait of Hormuz in return for a ceasefire lasting 45 days (more than six weeks).
Iranian state media rejected that proposal, nominally with the ridiculous expectation that the ceasefire itself must be permanent.
Tehran submitted its own 10-point proposal, including a permanent ceasefire in the “region” (presumably to protect Iran’s proxies too), a lifting of all sanctions, a “protocol for safe passage” through the strait (presumably empowering Iran to levy tribute in what are currently international channels), support for Iran’s reconstruction, and the lifting of sanctions.
On Monday, Trump said Iran’s 10-point proposal is “not good enough,” but his post of Tuesday evening declares, “It is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two-week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated.”
But what Iran claims has been agreed to would be unacceptable in the West.
Iranian outlets (including Press TV, Tasnim News Agency, IRNA, Mehr News Agency, and state TV) claimed the U.S. had accepted or committed “in principle” to Iran’s proposal, including a permanent ceasefire across the region; the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region; guarantees that the United States or Israel will not attack Iran again; Iran’s control of the strait; Iran’s continuing enrichment of uranium (although not to weapon grade); the termination of all UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions against Iran; the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran; and reparations for the damage to Iran.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, formerly Iran’s vice president (2024–25) and foreign minister (2013–21), had proposed that Iran’s enrichment and administration of the strait would be regionalized, which would undermine the IAEA, Western guarantees, and international law.
Western media have also reported that Iran expects to charge each vessel transiting the strait up to $2 million, which it will split with Oman.
Meanwhile, Iran has not agreed to the most important parts of the earlier U.S. 15-point proposal. Iran has not agreed to give up its remaining weapons-grade nuclear material (440 kg of it, according to the IAEA), permit IAEA inspections, change its regime, or cut off its proxies.
Israel says its ceasefire “does not include Lebanon,” contradicting earlier claims from Pakistan.
On Wednesday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance said that some in Tehran were “lying” about the proposals and that the ceasefire is “fragile” (a sentiment echoed by U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in a press conference).
Fourth concern: Iran has already publicly ruled out most of what the U.S. wants, partly to mobilize restive Iranians against foreigners supposedly intent on their destruction.
On Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry tweeted that it “officially rejects” the U.S. 15-point proposal as “unrealistic.” Worse, “Iran firmly refuses any negotiations conducted under the shadow of illegal sanctions, military threats, or coercion.”
Nuclear materials will be the most intractable issue.
On Wednesday, Hegseth said, “On the uranium, we’re watching it. We know what they have, and they will give it up, and we’ll get it, and we’ll take it if we have to.”
Meanwhile, Trump posted, “The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change! There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear Dust.”
Iran has signaled no such cooperation.
Zarif had asserted that “Iran’s nuclear or missile programs . . . are simply too entrenched and too dispersed to be bombed away.”
Opponents of the political administrations in the U.S. and Israel are having a field day spinning the ceasefire as falling short of their expectations.
Ben Rhodes, a former foreign policy staffer in the Obama administration, tweeted, “In the best case scenario, Trump struck a deal to reopen a strait that was open before the pointless war he started, with the IRGC demonstrating its control over the Strait and potentially extracting fees plus sanctions relief.”
Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid added, “There has never been such a political disaster in all of our history. Israel wasn’t even at the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our national security. The military carried out everything that was asked of it, and the public demonstrated amazing resilience, but Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and didn’t meet a single one of the goals that he himself set.”
Columnist Aaron MacLean, although sympathetic to Trump, notes that, “If the ceasefire doesn’t lead down the path toward diplomacy, or surrender, or Trump simply losing heart and moving on, we will be back in the standoff that gripped the world on Tuesday.”
Unfortunately, I would not bet on peace in two weeks’ time.
Ceasefires should only be used for retrieving the dead off the battlefield for burial.
A 100 reasons to doubt.
“However, I have four reasons for doubt.
“First, Iran might not have the intent or capacity to implement the ceasefire.”
There are several factions trying to decide who is in power. Some want war. This is my biggest doubt for peace. The problem-war factions want to hold out to the end of civilization as they know it.
“Second, Iran might use the ceasefire to retrench and reorganize for war.”
Time isn’t on there side for retrenching. They are probably trying to stretch the war powers act. The problem is that a ceasefire probably resets the 60 days to zero, something the Iranians and Democratic Party allies didn’t think about.
“Third, even if the ceasefire holds, Iran and the U.S. have wildly different versions of their respective proposals”
Multiple demand releases, means multiple factions. The faction Trump is dealing with is recognized by the Paki’s, and we haven’t seen that list yet that I know of.
“Fourth, Iran has publicly ruled out most U.S. demands, partly to mobilize restive Iranians against foreigners supposedly intent on their destruction”
What Iran publicly says and does are always different. Second, factions have goals, and releasing 10 point agendas and organizing isn’t going to help them. The main faction will just uncover who they are and take them out, or let the US know where they are….. same outcome..
We’ve been at war with the mullahs since ‘79, and now you’re complaining about the cost?!
Did you see Trump’s tariff announcement yesterday. He’s already thought of that.
The mullahs are gonna have a far harder time finding countries willing to rearm them.
Typical idiotic comment from you. I listed the added cost because it is a fact.
Ceasefire time is prep time for violent overthrow of mullahs by combined IDF, USA, Kurds, Persians, and others. Everyone wants their oil.
Too obvious. Trump acting as if peace, harmony, cooperation will commence. Just a ruse so he can act surprised when Iran reneges and then the final push begins.
IMHO
Iran has now allowed 2 oil tankers through, but only Iranian flagged tankers. Iran still has it effectively closed. They are not permitting any other oil tankers to transit.
FOX Late Night News on the night of the cease fire had commentary from three Iranian Americans and three “experts”.
The experts were all optimistic about the outcome of the cease fire. All three IA’s said it wouldn’t last 24 hours.
Always trust a man that beats his own mercilously.
#specially a state.
That would be al-Mahdi, the 12th imam or the Anti-Christ - this will trigger the end-of-the-world phase.
They don't want peace in any way, shape, or form. They want one-(Islamic) world rule. The Mahdi will bring this (or so they think).
Trump is not naive, but I'm not sure he understands the Biblical issues unfolding.
Iran is a KGB client state. Whatever is done, if it can possibly benefit KGB/Russia, will be done for the benefit of KGB/Russia, not KGB/Iran.
The Strait will remain closed as the higher, punishing oil costs benefit KGB/Russia.
Oh, and the bombings will resume because rebuilding KGB/Iran and its oil infrastructure will again benefit KGB/Russia.
Did anyone pay attention to KGB/Angola in the ‘70s? Guess not.
The ayatollah/mullah regime is still alive and doing evil, and the Iranian people remain enslaved.
Lord have mercy!!!!
Demand that all IRGC officers leave Iran.
If they refuse, bomb Kharg Island into dust and pebbles.
The IRGC leadership lives off oil revenue.
They do not care if Trump bombs bridges and power stations.
Destroy their oil income, and you destroy the IRGC.
Trump knows that Iran is the political and institutional center of Twelver Islam. Rubio spoke about it the other day.
I would suggest simply interdicting Iranian-sourced oil tankers. If you blow up Kharg Island you badly damage the Iranian economy for years (and then expect to hear elites talking about the need for US taxpayers to foot the bill to rebuild, ha!) Simply stopping or seizing oil tankers carrying Iranian oil shuts things down just as effectively without the lasting damage and blowback.
Have the catholic mullahs removed their children from necklacing the power plants?
Foreign correspondent Amy Kellogg reports the real-time reaction of a friend in Iran, who said that regime loyalists “will spend the next two weeks making missiles.
This suggests a clear disconnect gap in the intel analysis.
One the one hand, the missile/manufacturing infrastructure has been significantly damaged, so suggestions of rearming have to be factored to consider the diminished capability.
On the other hand, Israeli intelligence and American aerial surveillance should detect missile manufacturing activity and take out those sites. At the least, we should be able to detect the transport of completed missiles from the factories to the launch locations and take them out in transit.
It is my belief that the punditry is putting too much credibility on the ability of the IRGC to rearm during a two-week ceasefire. They may be repositioning, they may be moving stock, but I don't think they're able to replenish in any meaningful way.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.