When President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire in the 40-day war involving the United States, Israel and Iran in early April, optimism spread quickly.
Many believed Washington and Tehran were making progress on major strategic issues and that a breakthrough agreement was within reach.
More than two months later, no final deal has been announced. The ceasefire proved far less stable than initially presented, with repeated escalations keeping the region on edge.
The prolonged uncertainty has highlighted a central problem in US-Iran diplomacy: terms such as “ceasefire” and “agreement” may not mean the same thing to either side.
A Ceasefire in Name Only
Almost immediately after the ceasefire announcement, the Trump administration imposed a naval blockade on Iranian vessels attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Whatever its strategic justification, the move effectively undermined claims that a genuine ceasefire was in place.
Violence decreased, but tensions remained high.
US forces boarded Iranian vessels on several occasions, while “Operation Freedom Project” was launched, suspended and later resumed as an escort mission for commercial shipping leaving the Strait of Hormuz.
The risks of renewed confrontation remained significant.
In early May, Washington announced fresh strikes on Iranian coastal military sites, claiming they were in response to Iranian attacks on US warships involved in the blockade.
On 3 June, Iran launched missiles and drones at Kuwait Airport after accusing the United States of attacking its military infrastructure.
More recently, Iran shot down an American Apache helicopter, insisting the incident was accidental despite reports suggesting otherwise.
In this environment, the traditional “fog of war” has been accompanied by what some now describe as the “fog of ceasefire”.
What Does an Agreement Actually Mean?
The meaning of another key term, “agreement”, has also shifted.
Shortly before the ceasefire, Washington presented a 15 point proposal outlining its demands. Iran responded after the ceasefire with a 10 point proposal of its own.
These documents effectively represented each side’s maximum demands.
The United States initially sought a comprehensive agreement covering Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, ballistic missiles and its relationships with allied armed groups across the region.
Iran, however, treated its own proposal as a set of preconditions before entering serious negotiations.
From the outset, the two sides appeared not only divided on substance, but also operating with fundamentally different expectations.
Over recent weeks, US officials, including Trump, have largely stopped emphasising Iran’s missile programme and regional allies.
The nuclear issue has become the primary focus.
Even so, recent indications suggest that the two sides are not negotiating a final settlement, but rather a framework agreement that would pave the way for more substantive talks later.
Iran has also remained cautious about defining its red lines, leaving even an interim agreement uncertain.
The Most Dangerous Phase May Come After the Deal
The most likely near term scenario is a framework agreement that includes a halt to hostilities, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to the US naval blockade, and some form of economic compensation for Iran through sanctions relief or the release of frozen assets.
Recent reports also suggest such an arrangement could include a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, although that would almost certainly remain fragile.
More importantly, the agreement would likely open a limited window for deeper negotiations centred on Iran’s nuclear programme, while avoiding explicit references to ballistic missiles or regional allies.
But even if such an agreement is signed, the danger may not disappear.
Both Washington and Tehran will need to convince their domestic audiences that they have achieved something meaningful.
If either side faces strong political resistance, the process could quickly unravel.
And any actor that believes its interests are being sidelined, including Israel or Hezbollah, may have the ability to derail progress through a single military action.
For that reason, the period after an agreement may prove more dangerous than the negotiations themselves.
In a region where the definitions of “ceasefire” and “agreement” remain fluid, peace can be as unstable as war.
