A Temporary Truce Replaces Calls for “Unconditional Surrender”

New understandings between Washington and Tehran signal a clear shift in the trajectory of a confrontation that began with hardline American rhetoric, including demands for Iran’s “unconditional surrender”, only to end in a temporary truce that postpones the most contentious issues to future rounds of negotiations.

According to a report by the Financial Times, written by Andrew England and Neri Zilber, President Donald Trump has effectively accepted a comfortable ceasefire arrangement with Iran after previously insisting, following the outbreak of war at the end of February, that nothing short of unconditional surrender would be acceptable.

The newspaper stated that more than one hundred days of military confrontation and diplomatic talks ultimately produced an agreement that delays the fundamental disputes that were originally at the heart of the conflict. Trump nevertheless praised the deal, which the report says demonstrates the Islamic Republic’s ability to withstand American and Israeli strikes, while also highlighting its growing influence through its capacity to disrupt global energy flows via the Strait of Hormuz.

According to US officials, the agreement is not limited to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. They argue it could eventually pave the way for the permanent dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme, one of Trump’s longstanding objectives.

A Deal That Ends the Fighting But Defers the Real Questions

While some parties welcomed the agreement as a step towards ending the war, the Financial Times argued that it simultaneously postpones crucial issues and exposes the difficult choices facing the American president after more than a hundred days of conflict.

The paper quoted former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro as saying that the agreement falls far short of the goals Washington announced at the start of the war. He explained that its central feature is currently the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become the single most important issue in the entire crisis.

Shapiro added that this reveals the extent of Iran’s leverage in convincing Trump that ending the war, even on limited terms, was preferable to prolonging it.

The report noted that analysts believe both sides wanted the war to end. However, Trump faced difficult decisions in reaching that outcome, particularly after encouragement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pursue military confrontation.

Under the new truce, the United States and Iran will extend the fragile ceasefire agreed on 8 April for an additional sixty days.

In return, Iran will gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz after clearing naval mines and will refrain from imposing shipping fees during the extension period.

The newspaper argued that this directly addresses one of Trump’s most pressing concerns, namely the global energy crisis worsened by the war. Petrol prices in the United States had risen above four dollars per gallon only months before the midterm elections, which Republicans are preparing to contest.

A diplomat familiar with the talks told the Financial Times that extending the ceasefire by sixty days benefits both sides. It prolongs de-escalation, reopens the strait, establishes a foundation for new nuclear negotiations, and eases pressure on Iran.

The diplomat added that the greatest mistake would be to view these understandings as the final agreement between the two countries.

He stressed that what has occurred cannot be described as complete surrender and that Washington understands this reality. According to him, Trump’s team believes it can work with the current Iranian government, while pursuing total capitulation could strengthen hardline factions within Iran and create an even more complicated situation. For this reason, the agreement is being treated as a step towards long term stability.

The Nuclear File Remains Unresolved

Under the terms of the agreement, Iran has reaffirmed its commitment not to possess or develop nuclear weapons. Washington and Tehran have also reached preliminary understandings regarding Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium through a mutually agreed mechanism.

A source familiar with the negotiations said the minimum commitments include reducing uranium enrichment levels at Iranian facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Financial Times noted that Iran possesses more than 9,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, most of it at low enrichment levels. Around 440 kilograms are enriched close to weapons grade levels, material Trump has repeatedly described as “nuclear dust”.

Despite the American president’s insistence that Iran must relinquish this “nuclear dust”, decisive negotiations over the future of Iran’s nuclear programme are not expected to begin in earnest until after the formal signing of the memorandum of understanding scheduled for Friday.

The newspaper added that Iran is known for prolonging negotiations, while Trump’s only consistent position throughout the crisis has been his opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, despite the war itself lacking clearly defined objectives from the outset.

For its part, Tehran has continued to insist on its right to enrich uranium, citing a religious decree issued by Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.

The report also noted that any easing of sanctions imposed on Iran, including the release of frozen Iranian assets, would occur gradually and depend on progress made in future nuclear negotiations.

At the same time, the United States will allow Iran to continue selling oil throughout the sixty day ceasefire extension, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Economic Recovery and Regional Influence

The Financial Times argued that securing economic gains is a major priority for Tehran, as it would give the country an opportunity to begin repairing the extensive damage caused by American and Israeli strikes.

Despite suffering military losses and the deaths of several senior commanders, the Iranian political system has remained intact. The report also noted that Mojtaba Khamenei has been appointed as the new Supreme Leader following his father’s death.

The report highlighted that Iran has demonstrated, after years of threats, a genuine ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports pass. It has also shown the capacity to conduct precision strikes against Gulf states and American military bases across the region.

Shapiro said these realities provide Iran with significant leverage in upcoming nuclear negotiations, particularly regarding the fate of its highly enriched uranium stockpile, alongside its longstanding ability to prolong talks.

By contrast, the new memorandum of understanding is not expected to include any provisions concerning Iran’s missile arsenal, drone capabilities, or support for its regional allies.

The newspaper explained that these issues have for years been a source of concern not only for Israel but also for Arab states, many of which warned Trump against entering the war while simultaneously supporting efforts to end the conflict.

Trump had declared at the outset of the war that the United States would destroy Iran’s missile industry. However, the Islamic Republic continued to launch strikes against neighbouring countries despite those threats.

Can the Agreement Survive?

Some analysts have questioned whether the agreement can endure and advance to later stages.

They point to Trump’s earlier plan to end the war in Gaza, which stalled after its first phase despite the significant attention surrounding its announcement last October.

The newspaper quoted Sanam Vakil, a researcher at Chatham House in London, as saying that the United States and Iran effectively hold one another hostage. Washington relies on sanctions and the threat of military action, while Iran uses its control over the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic pressure point.

Vakil added that the crisis is not over and that Trump’s negotiating style suggests this phase could last longer than sixty days, carrying considerable risks.

Experts also noted that Israel would face significant difficulties continuing military operations against Iran without American support because of its heavy reliance on US supplied air defence systems.

The Financial Times further observed that Netanyahu, who is preparing for another election later this year, is unlikely to welcome a new public political confrontation with an American president.

The newspaper quoted Shira Efron of the RAND Corporation as saying that Israel would have preferred to see economic pressure on Iran maintained at a minimum. However, she added that there is no guarantee such a strategy would succeed.

Efron concluded that the assumption Iran would surrender under military pressure has been completely overturned, making it extremely difficult to present the outcome inside Israel as a genuine success.