After the 2-week ceasefire agreement reached between the United States of America (USA) and Iran, the parties will try to finalize a peace agreement. This is the conclusion drawn from the reactions of officials.
The parties will meet in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, which mediated the ceasefire. Iran demands the lifting of sanctions and the withdrawal of US forces from the region.
On April 10, the American delegation to the US-Iran talks in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, will be led by Vice President J.D. Vance. According to ISNA, the Iranian delegation will be led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran (Parliament).
Iranian media reports that "within the framework of Iran's proposed 10-point plan, not only the nuclear program and regional security, but also the primary and secondary sanctions imposed on Iran over the last 45 years will be discussed".
Commenting on the ceasefire agreement to Modern.az, British political scientist Neil Watson stated that the two-week ceasefire is not a step towards lasting peace:
In a statement to our website, English political scientist Neil Watson said that if talks take place, they will be based not on general statements, but on four key points:
“Firstly, I would evaluate this ceasefire not as a peace treaty, but as a window opened for tactical de-escalation. Reports confirm that this is a two-week pause related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the start of negotiations. This period may be sufficient to prevent an immediate transition to a large-scale regional war and to create a framework for negotiations, but two weeks are not enough to achieve lasting peace if security guarantees, the nuclear issue, the sanctions regime, and rules of conduct in the Gulf are not agreed upon. In other words, this is not "peace," but a ceasefire under pressure from markets, military fatigue, and mediators.
If talks take place, they will be based not on general statements, but on four key points: Hormuz, security guarantees, sanctions, and the nuclear program. Iran has already announced its preconditions, such as the suspension of sanctions, guarantees against future attacks, and compensation for damages. Trump, at the same time, stated that any future agreement must "close" the issue of Iran's nuclear materials. This means that the agenda will be dominated by the navigation regime in Hormuz, the irreversibility of the ceasefire, the lifting of asset freezes, and an acceptable level of enrichment and control over nuclear infrastructure. Furthermore, the issue of Iran's unofficial missile program and proxy networks will inevitably arise, as without this, a part of the Israeli and US authorities will not consider any agreement comprehensive”.
The political scientist also spoke about the concessions made by the US and Iran:
“The most obvious sign of a US concession is its refusal to immediately proceed with a new wave of large-scale strikes against Iranian infrastructure. The second element is Trump's explicit description of Iran's proposal as a "workable basis," meaning it forms a foundation for future negotiations. On the other hand, Washington has effectively agreed to seek a solution not only through ultimatums but also through a mediation format. However, this should not be overstated, as the US has made operational, not strategic, concessions while maintaining its core demands regarding Hormuz, the nuclear program, and the limitation of threats.
The concessions made by Iran, however, are mainly tactical, not strategic. The most important point is that Tehran has temporarily agreed to de-escalate tensions and allowed safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has taken this step despite the Gulf of Hormuz being under its military coordination. This already represents a departure from the strategy of completely restricting global traffic. Furthermore, Iran has effectively accepted the usefulness of the negotiation channel, despite having previously taken a tougher stance aimed at an immediate cessation of strikes without interim arrangements. However, these steps cannot yet be described as strategic concessions. This is because Iran has not abandoned its demands regarding the lifting of sanctions, security guarantees, compensation, or its influence over maritime routes. Therefore, it is more accurate to describe this as a "tactical adjustment" aimed at gaining time and strengthening its negotiating positions”.
The British expert also commented on whether the talks would turn into lasting peace:
“There is a possibility. However, I don't think it's a very high probability. Both sides have reached a point where war is very costly. Markets, allies, and mediators are all trying to de-escalate tensions – this objectively creates an incentive for a more formalized agreement. But there is a significant difference between a temporary ceasefire and institutional peace: the latter requires agreement on verification mechanisms, sanctions, rules for the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear limitations, and enforcement mechanisms. At this stage, even the narratives differ, as Trump speaks of a two-week pause, while Iran emphasizes the need for lasting peace under certain conditions. Therefore, the chances of a long-term agreement are real, but it depends on whether this pause turns into a structured system of guarantees rather than merely preparation for the next phase of the conflict”.
The political commentator also spoke about whether regional actors such as Israel, Turkey, Russia, and Pakistan would influence the process:
“The influence of these countries is significant, but they differ essentially from each other. Israel is a key factor limiting any overly lenient agreement: Netanyahu supported the pause only after ensuring the confirmation of broader strategic goals related to Iran's nuclear, missile, and regional activities. This means that if Israel believes the outcome makes Iran too strong, it can both support the talks and limit the scope of compromise. Turkey currently plays the role of a diplomatic facilitator within the mediation framework, coordinating with regional actors and potentially accelerating negotiations. Russia, on the other hand, has demonstrated its desire to act as an external balancer and, if necessary, to shape the international framework and make the implementation of US conditions more difficult. This means that Russia's role is more about influencing the strategic environment in which that country operates, rather than achieving peace”.
