The Iranian ceasefire was less than three hours old when missiles from Iran began flying towards Israel and the Gulf states. That detail – documented in real time – tells you more about the sustainability of this agreement than any official statement. A break is not peace. A handshake in Islamabad is not a settlement. And a region that has been at war for forty days is not withdrawing because two governments have posted parallel messages on social media.
The two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief General Asim Munir is sincerely welcome. It caused both sides to withdraw from an abyss with real humanitarian and strategic consequences. But Vice President JD Vance himself called it a “fragile truce.” That’s the most honest thing anyone in this government has said about it. Hold that sentence.
What the ceasefire actually says
Under the agreement, Iran has committed to allowing safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz for a period of two weeks, “subject to technical limitations” – Iran’s qualification, not ours. The United States and Israel have suspended the bombing. President Donald Trump called Iran’s 10-point proposal “a workable basis on which to negotiate,” adding that “almost all the various points of previous disputes have been agreed upon.” That claim requires investigation. Iran’s demands include the lifting of all sanctions, the withdrawal of US forces from regional bases, reparations, Iranian control of the Hormuz transit for $2 million per ship, and – crucially – the right to nuclear enrichment. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council called the ceasefire “a lasting defeat” for Washington. Trump called it a “total and complete victory.” When both sides claim the same agreement as their victory, you have a temporary suspension of hostilities while both sides reposition themselves.
IRAN CONFLICT TESTS PAKISTAN AGAINST ITS OWN BORDER CONFLICTS AS ISLAMABAD TAKEN AS PLACE FOR US-TEHRAN DEALS
The fractures are already visible
Israel is not bound by this ceasefire in Lebanon. Netanyahu’s office clearly stated that the agreement does not cover fighting there, directly contradicting Pakistan’s public claim that the ceasefire applied everywhere. Hezbollah has not issued a statement. Iran-backed militias in Iraq have suspended operations for two weeks — but that statement came from a group that follows its own timeline. Oil futures fell 13% after the news. The markets are relieved. They also have to be vigilant. A single maritime incident, a proxy missile or an intelligence miscalculation could derail this arrangement before the talks in Islamabad even begin.
The hidden winners: Beijing and Moscow
While Washington and Tehran negotiate, two other capitals are quietly counting their wins. Russia and China have not been idle spectators in this conflict; they have been active participants, and the ceasefire does not change that calculus one bit.
Russia’s role has been documented in intelligence assessments reviewed by several major news organizations. Russian satellites conducted at least 24 surveillance sweeps of 46 military and infrastructure sites in 11 Middle Eastern countries in the last ten days of March alone – including US bases at Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia, Al Udeid in Qatar and Diego Garcia. Within days of those investigations, Iran hit many of those same facilities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was 100% sure that Russia shared this targeting data with Tehran. According to Zelenskyy, President Vladimir Putin’s goal is a “long war in the Middle East.”
The financial incentive is equally clear. The Peterson Institute for International Economics calculates that Russia could rake in between $45 billion and $151 billion in additional budget revenues in 2026 from the oil price spike alone – revenues that would go directly to financing the war in Ukraine. The Trump administration’s temporary easing of sanctions on Russian oil, described as a market stabilization measure, has compounded this windfall. Every dollar Moscow earns from Iran’s strait disruption will win another day of war against Kiev.
China’s role is more subtle, but equally calculated. After the ceasefire, reports emerged that Beijing had worked through intermediaries – including Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt – to quietly encourage Iran to negotiate. China publicly welcomed the outcome. That is the attitude of a power that wanted the crisis to end on terms it helped shape, and not the attitude of a bystander. Intelligence reports also indicate that China may have provided Iran with financial support, spare parts and access to its BeiDou navigation satellite system – which analysts say could explain the improved accuracy of Iranian missile targeting throughout the conflict.
Trump has repeatedly identified China as America’s most important long-term security problem. That assessment is correct. That makes the strategic arithmetic of the past forty days deeply troubling: every Patriot interceptor fired over Riyadh is one less available to Kiev or Taiwan. Every week taken up with ceasefire negotiations in Islamabad is a week not spent supporting the Indo-Pacific deterrent architecture that Beijing is systematically exploring. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted bluntly that Putin hopes that “successive crises in Iran will continue to distract the United States from pressuring him over the war in Ukraine.” Both Moscow and Beijing understand something that Washington must not forget: the enemy of your enemy is your strategic opportunity.
The nuclear issue is the whole ball game
I have argued for years – in my 2024 book “Preparing for World War III: A Global Conflict That Redefine Tomorrow” – that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are the engine driving this conflict. A ceasefire that leaves this issue unresolved has postponed the most dangerous phase and not resolved it. Trump said Iran’s uranium would be “perfectly taken care of” but declined to confirm whether the deal would allow enrichment. Iranian state media reported that this is the case. In the English version this clause has been omitted. That’s not a translation problem. It is a substantial divide of the kind that causes wars when it resurfaces. My former battalion commander Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule applies as surely to diplomacy as it does to war: “You break it, you own it.” If we accept terms that touch on the nuclear issue to secure a headline-friendly announcement, we own every consequence that follows when enrichment resumes. The mullahs played that game in 2015. Nothing in this framework suggests a different outcome.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The bottom line
Preventing a catastrophe is no small matter. But the underlying problems remain: Iran’s nuclear program, its proxy network, its regional ambitions, and Russia and China calculating every move to their advantage behind the scenes. The next two weeks will show whether the two sides have negotiated seriously – or whether both sides have used the pause to reposition themselves for the next confrontation. A fragile truce in an unstable region, with two major powers working on the margins, is not an end point. It is a moment of decision. Use it wisely.
CLICK HERE TO ROBERT MAGINNIS
