Despite nearly 40 hours passing since the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran, the United States, and their partners, developments occurring immediately afterward have heightened concerns regarding the durability and effectiveness of this fragile truce.

In the early hours of Wednesday (Tehran time)—just an hour before the expiration of Donald Trump’s ultimatum threatening a massive strike on Iran’s infrastructure—efforts to halt the conflict succeeded. Through the mediation of the Pakistani government, a two-week temporary ceasefire was formally recognized by both parties to initiate end-of-war negotiations in Islamabad. Following Trump’s initial announcement, a joint text was released by him and Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister. While accepting the ceasefire, the text reflected few details of the agreement: negotiations regarding the U.S. 15-point conditions and Iran’s 10-point conditions, the cessation of attacks, and a limited reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under the supervision of the Iranian Armed Forces. The Prime Minister of Pakistan also announced the immediate start of the ceasefire and invited both sides to Islamabad for talks. However, hours later, the first disputes emerged over this truce, which appears to have been reached with significant haste.

Heavy Israeli strikes on Lebanon on Wednesday, which resulted in more than 350 deaths and over 1,200 injuries, triggered the initial grounds for dispute. The United States—which had accepted the ceasefire declaration on behalf of its own government as well as Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchies—stated that the cessation of attacks in Lebanon was not part of the ceasefire conditions. The Iranian side protested these attacks and, contrary to the American stance, considered them a serious violation of the truce. In a peculiar comment, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance attributed this discrepancy to the "weak English language skills" of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (who is reportedly expected to head the Iranian negotiating delegation). It is worth noting that in recent weeks, Ghalibaf's posts on X (formerly Twitter) had garnered attention for their tone and the sophisticated English used—language that clearly demonstrated a strong command of both the English language and American culture.

High-ranking Iranian officials, including the President, the Foreign Minister, and Ghalibaf, emphasized yesterday and today that peace negotiations are meaningless if the attacks in Lebanon do not stop. However, the American side has so far refrained from making an explicit statement on this matter. This dispute comes despite the fact that the Pakistani Prime Minister’s official announcement of the ceasefire specifically mentioned Lebanon.

However, the disputes between the two sides regarding the ceasefire are not limited to Lebanon. The brief and ambiguous text released in the ceasefire announcement has sparked further disagreements—primarily concerning the specific conditions each side intends to bring to the negotiating table. Weeks ago, amidst the recent conflict and following U.S. pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran to resume talks to end the war, media outlets reported a set of 15 conditions issued by the United States. While these conditions have not been officially released to this day, media speculation aligns with official American statements regarding their wartime objectives. These are assessed to include issues such as uranium enrichment, missile restrictions, the cessation of support for regional groups, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. On the other hand, after Abbas Araghchi announced the acceptance of the temporary ceasefire on behalf of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the council issued a detailed and strongly-worded statement outlining Iran's ten conditions: "non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of enrichment, lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, termination of all Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions, payment of reparations to Iran, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region, and the cessation of war on all fronts, including against Lebanon." The publication of these terms by Iran has triggered varied reactions within the United States.

Donald Trump’s contradictory remarks regarding the state of the war and the ceasefire, combined with the way the conflict was initiated and managed, have led to severe domestic criticism. This criticism, which peaked after his threat to return Iran to the "Stone Age" and the widespread destruction of Iranian infrastructure, did not subside following the announcement of the temporary truce. A significant portion of this backlash is now focused on the framework and conditions of the ceasefire negotiations. Today, Donald Trump accused CNN and The New York Times of spreading falsehoods regarding Iran's 10-point plan. A review of the reports from these two outlets reveals that what Trump labeled as "fake news" and "fabricated" is, in fact, the publication of Iran's ten conditions in American media—conditions that had already been officially released by Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Notably, the official publication of these terms immediately following the ceasefire announcement had initially drawn no reaction from Trump.

Another controversial issue has been Trump’s positive reaction to the possibility of Iran receiving fees for allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz—a reaction that suggests a significant understanding between the two sides regarding the Strait, which remains one of the most contentious points of dispute. Nevertheless, in response to the attacks in Lebanon, Iran has halted the passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz over the past two days, mirroring its actions during the active war phase. Although this could be considered another violation of this fragile ceasefire, it has yet to draw a serious reaction from the United States.

On Wednesday morning, attacks were also carried out against the Iranian islands of Siri and Lavan. Investigations by military experts indicate that these strikes originated from the United Arab Emirates, a country that suffered heavy blows from Iranian armed forces during the war and which the U.S. has identified as one of the governments it represents in the ceasefire negotiations. Furthermore, the flight of an enemy drone in Iranian airspace was another issue reported by Iran to the Pakistani Prime Minister as a violation of the temporary ceasefire. It remains to be seen whether, despite these disputes and developments, the efforts to halt the war and resolve the conflict through bilateral dialogue will prove sustainable.