What the US-Iran ceasefire does and doesn’t mean

The US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, the details of which have not been confirmed by both sides, averting Trump’s threat to destroy Iran.

The purported statement by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council that CNN and others reported was dismissed as fake by Trump, who instead shared Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s cryptic X post on his Truth Social account.

Whatever the truth about the terms may be, US-Iranian talks will resume in Islamabad on Friday (April 10). Here are five preliminary thoughts:

1. Israel will follow US’s lead

While Israel may have wanted the US to achieve their shared goals through military means, it will not brazenly impede the ceasefire’s implementation and risk the US leaving it to fend for itself — hence its acceptance of the decision, which in turn facilitates Friday’s planned talks.

If those negotiations stall, Israel might try to provoke Iran into resuming full-scale hostilities if it senses the US would join in, though it is unlikely to attempt this if talks appear to be going well.

2. Multisided security guarantees

Iran requires the US to withdraw its forces from the Gulf, whether to the status quo ante bellum, further or entirely.

Meanwhile, the US and Israel demand the removal of Iran’s enriched uranium, at a minimum international monitoring of its nuclear program and curbs on its missile program.

US sanctions, including secondary ones, could snap back if war resumes. As for the Gulf, the UAE and Israel may become military allies, while the rest of the region consolidates militarily under Saudi leadership.

3. US won’t likely accept the petroyuan

The petroyuan — Iran’s alleged requirement of payment in yuan for safe transit through the strait — will probably not figure into any peace deal.

The US would rather Iran split payment with Oman in dollars as a form of reparations, which would also strengthen the petrodollar, than allow the petroyuan to emerge as a competitor.

Likewise, the US may also demand that Iran eventually zero out its oil sales to China in exchange for sanctions relief, even if only informally agreed to.

4. Talks could be another trap

Iran repeatedly reminded the world during the conflict that the US attacked it twice while negotiations were underway, so it is possible it will do so a third time.

In this scenario, Trump may have issued his threat to destroy Iran without coordinating with Israel and the Gulf kingdoms, leaving them more vulnerable than if they had more time to prepare for Iran’s retaliation.

The two-week ceasefire may give them enough time, even if they would prefer the US not initiate this sequence.

5. Sword of Damocles of radical global change

On that note, the US has the capability and intent to destroy Iran, which would drive Iran to do its utmost to take the Gulf kingdoms down with it.

The resulting disruption would throw Afro-Eurasia into chaos as the region’s energy exports go offline indefinitely — all while the US withdraws to “Fortress America” in the Western Hemisphere, from where it would divide and rule the Eastern one.

This sword of Damocles of radical global change, therefore, remains and should not be forgotten.

Both sides have declared victory, but the war is not over until there is a US-Iranian agreement to that effect — one that may prospectively incorporate elements from former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s proposal, published in Foreign Affairs last week.

It is accordingly premature to declare a victor, which can only be determined with confidence upon the conclusion of a peace deal, based on the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium, nuclear program, missile program, oil exports to China and the petroyuan.

This article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished here with editing for clarity, fluency and grammar. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.