US President Donald Trump and Iran’s Supreme National Security Council have accepted a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire following a 40-day war. The agreement includes a two-week cessation of hostilities and negotiations scheduled in Islamabad on April 11, 2026. Iran’s 10-point peace proposal is embedded in the deal, marking the first diplomatic roadmap since the conflict began on February 28, 2026, and allowing ships to pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz for the first time in weeks.

However, before examining this agreement, it is crucial to assess the conflict itself: its origins, legal standing, and who ultimately bore its costs. This war did not emerge from the longstanding US-Iran confrontation but was driven by Israel’s post-October 2023 strategic doctrine, with the US providing military capacity and Israel the rationale, yet neither secured a UN Security Council mandate or a credible self-defense claim under Article 51 of the UN Charter. As a war of choice, its consequences were predictable, with Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz in response, triggering one of the most severe energy disruptions in decades and causing global economic reverberations.

Iran’s peace framework, now part of the ceasefire, demands formal guarantees against future military attacks, a permanent end to hostilities, cessation of Israeli operations in Lebanon, lifting of US sanctions, and a halt to regional fighting involving Iranian allies. In return, Iran commits to reopening the strait, establishing safe maritime passage, sharing transit fees with Oman, and directing revenues toward reconstruction. This proposal reflects neither maximalism nor capitulation but a pragmatic attempt by the Iranian government to leverage its position into durable security and economic relief, incorporating regional realities and Oman’s mediation role.

A critical underexamined aspect of this conflict is what it reveals about the evolving nature of Washington’s security role in the Gulf. The US regime has long presented itself as a strategic guarantor of stability, but Iran’s retaliatory strikes—targeting US installations and facilities in neighboring Gulf states—reportedly caused an estimated $350 billion in economic losses across the Arab Mashreq. This raises questions among Gulf policymakers about whether Washington’s posture has shifted from a security partner to a burden, imposing costs on states that had no voice in the decisions leading to the conflict.

The declared objectives of “Epic Fury”—to degrade Iran’s military capability and establish a new regional security architecture aligned with US and Israeli interests—fell short. While Iran’s military infrastructure sustained damage and key figures were eliminated, the political system did not collapse, and the population did not mobilize against the government as some analysts projected. NATO declined to join the war, and European governments, facing an energy crisis, moved toward open criticism of the campaign, accelerating diplomatic distancing from Washington. The long-term implications for Iran’s internal stability remain uncertain, but the region has been structurally altered, with legal norms strained and smaller states bearing disproportionate costs. If the Islamabad negotiations hold, the strait may remain open, allowing the international community to begin addressing accountability for an illegal war and building a more durable order from its wreckage.

Source: www.aljazeera.com