US-Iran Ceasefire Hinge on Diplomatic Trust

The United States and Iran have agreed to a two-week ceasefire in a deal brokered by Pakistan, which will see Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping while negotiations continue toward a more permanent settlement.

US President Donald Trump announced the agreement on his TruthSocial platform less than two hours before the 8pm EST deadline on April 7. Earlier on the same day, he had posted a stark warning: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”

Formal talks are scheduled to begin in Islamabad on April 10, where both sides will discuss a ten-point plan presented by Iran on April 6. Under the plan, Iran has offered to open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a permanent end to attacks by the US and Israel. Other conditions include lifting all primary and secondary sanctions, a US withdrawal from the Middle East, and Iranian control of the strait. A proposed $2 million fee for ships transiting the strait would be shared between Iran and Oman, with Iran using its portion for reconstruction.

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed support for the ceasefire but noted that the deal does not cover Lebanon. In contrast, both Iran and Pakistan insist Lebanon is part of the agreement, a point of contention likely to shape negotiations from the outset.

An ongoing challenge for diplomacy remains trust between the parties. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera on March 31 that Iran has “zero trust” in the US, citing past negotiations that were followed by military attacks. “Twice—last year and now this year—we negotiated and the result was an attack by them. And so we don’t have any faith that negotiations with the US will yield any results,” he said.

Experts from the University of Birmingham and the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) explain that distrust differs from a simple absence of trust. While lack of trust leaves room for possible future cooperation, distrust assumes hostile intentions. Araghchi’s statement reflects active distrust, highlighting Iran’s belief that US diplomacy will be exploited rather than reciprocated.

Historical parallels, such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, show that even amid deep distrust, a shared recognition of vulnerability enabled US and Soviet leaders to negotiate de-escalation. However, Araghchi’s remarks suggest Iran sees no such presumption of trust in current US negotiations.

Observers note that for diplomacy to succeed, the US must demonstrate that negotiations are genuine and not a cover for further military action. The fragile ceasefire may buy time, but rebuilding trust will be key for a lasting resolution.

This agreement comes at a tense moment in Middle East diplomacy, where trust—or the lack thereof—may determine whether temporary calm can evolve into lasting peace.