US President Donald Trump announced that a 2-week ceasefire agreement has been reached with Iran. During this period, the parties will try to finalize a peace agreement. 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.
Pakistan, China, Russia, and other countries have certain views on these issues.
As a regional actor, Turkey's approach and expectations regarding the issue are quite important and noteworthy.
Modern.az-a açıqlamasında türkiyəli təhlükəsizlik eksperti İmbat Muğlu stated that in international politics, some steps appear at first glance to be steps towards peace, but upon deeper investigation, it becomes clear that they are the product of more complex calculations:
“The US-Iran ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump is precisely such a development. Two weeks... A short period for diplomacy, but a highly significant period for geopolitical calculations. Such ceasefires are usually not harbingers of lasting peace, but rather "strategic pauses" where parties adjust their positions, assess risks, and plan their next steps. Indeed, the tension between the US and Iran is part of a chain of deep crises spanning not just today, but decades. Considering issues such as the nuclear program, regional power struggles, and sanctions, a two-week period is not expected to resolve these problems. So why is this ceasefire important? Because such short-term agreements create a ground where the intentions of the parties are tested. At the same time, they reduce the risk of direct conflict and open space for diplomacy”.
According to the expert, the views of regional and global actors on this process are as important as the ceasefire itself:
“For Israel, the issue is perceived as a direct security threat. Iran gaining time in this process is a serious source of concern in Tel Aviv. Therefore, the ceasefire is a supported, yet unreliable, interim solution. However, Russia approaches this differently. Neither a full-scale war nor a full-scale peace aligns with Moscow's interests. Controlled tension will both keep the US occupied and open up geopolitical maneuvering space for Russia. Therefore, for Russia, the ceasefire is not a solution, but represents a managed balance. On Turkey's side, the picture is more pragmatic. Every tension in the region directly affects security, economic, and energy balances. Therefore, while Ankara supports the reduction of tension, it prefers the ceasefire to evolve into a permanent process. Short-term agreements are viewed positively but are not considered sufficient. What about China? China views this process not as a direct security crisis, but as an issue of economic and strategic stability. For Beijing, the Middle East is crucial for the continuity of energy supply and the security of global trade routes. Therefore, the possibility of a sudden war is one of the least desired scenarios for China. China's approach is generally clear: tension should be reduced, stability maintained, and, where possible, the process should transition to multilateral diplomacy. The two-week ceasefire announced between the US and Iran appears at first glance to be an important step in reducing regional tension. However, a closer look reveals a significant gap in this agreement: Lebanon has been left out of this framework. The influential “Hezbollah” in the country is not only a local actor but also an important part of Iran's regional strategy. Therefore, a ceasefire with Iran does not automatically bind “Hezbollah”. Moreover, the Lebanese arena has long been at the center of tension between Israel and Hezbollah. This line is a separate "conflict file" with its own dynamics. This equation, based on border security, deterrence, and mutual threat perception, can continue regardless of diplomatic developments on the US-Iran front. Precisely for this reason, the aforementioned ceasefire is not actually a comprehensive peace agreement; it is a step towards managing limited tension. Consequently, Lebanon's exclusion from the ceasefire is not an exception, but rather a natural outcome of the region's multi-layered conflict structure”.
According to I. Muğlu, the most important fact that stands out is that diplomatic relations between the US and Iran are not broad enough to cover all lines of tension:
“In the Middle East, no ceasefire is a "complete" ceasefire unless it truly covers all fronts. Lebanon stands before us today as the most concrete example of this fact. A ceasefire exists, but the possibility of war is still on the table. This entire picture tells us: This ceasefire is not a solution in itself. However, if managed correctly, it can be an opportunity. In international relations, peace often begins not with grand agreements, but with small, temporary steps. However, whether these steps yield lasting results depends on whether the parties truly desire a solution. When the two-week period ends, we will have two possibilities: Either this process will evolve into a broader diplomatic framework, or the parties will continue from where they left off, perhaps even more harshly. In short, this ceasefire is not an end, but a test. And the outcome of this test will directly affect not only Washington and Tehran but also a broad geopolitical spectrum from Israel to China”.
