Iran and America agree to pause their war

A DAY THAT began with threats of annihilation ended with an armistice. For two weeks Donald Trump has vowed to bomb Iran’s power plants and send the country “back to the stone ages” if it did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. On Tuesday morning, 12 hours before his ultimatum expired, the president posted a chilling warning on social media: “A whole civilization will die tonight,” he wrote.

Then, with less than 90 minutes until his deadline, Mr Trump abruptly called a halt to the American-Israeli war in Iran—at least for now. He announced a two-week ceasefire, subject to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz”, the waterway that has become the focal point of the war. Iran confirmed the truce and said traffic through the strait could resume, albeit subject to unclear “technical limitations”.

As ever in the Middle East, the ceasefire started with more fire: alerts of Iranian attacks blared in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as in Israel. Soon, though, state television in Iran announced that the supreme leader had ordered the military to stop shooting. Negotiations about a permanent end to the war are due to start on Friday in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, according to the Iranians. The question now is whether they can succeed—or whether this proves just a temporary lull.

Predictably, both sides rushed to declare victory. In the American version of events, Mr Trump’s madman approach to foreign policy paid off: he compelled Iran to reopen the strait without first securing a comprehensive ceasefire. In Iran, meanwhile, it was Mr Trump who capitulated. The regime’s threats to attack power plants and water-desalination facilities in Gulf states deterred the president from following through on his ultimatum.

Either way, the truce will be a welcome respite for everyone in the Middle East—except perhaps Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who was given no choice but to accept. Pakistan, which has helped to mediate between America and Iran, claims the ceasefire also includes a halt to Israel’s war in Lebanon, which has killed more than 1,500 people and displaced 1m more. Israel said the truce did not include Lebanon.

The talks in Islamabad will be complicated, to say the least. Over the past few weeks America and Iran have exchanged several proposals for ending the war. Their positions could not be further apart. The most striking line from Mr Trump’s announcement described Iran’s most recent ten-point proposal as “a workable basis on which to negotiate”. Among those points are Iran’s continued control of the Strait of Hormuz, recognition of its right to enrich uranium and the withdrawal of American troops from bases in the region. Any of those would represent enormous American concessions were they to be included in a final deal.

Agreeing to discuss Iran’s demands does not mean Mr Trump will ultimately accept them, however. America has its own demands, one of which is that Iran swear off uranium enrichment altogether. If both sides stick to their current positions, the talks could end up at the same impasse they reached just before the war in February.

Iran’s nuclear programme will not be the only contentious issue. The regime wants to continue collecting tolls from vessels that transit Hormuz, a revenue stream which could be worth billions of dollars a year. Most of its Gulf neighbours rightly see this as extortion. Yet the scheme may not even be workable in peacetime. Offering to drop it would be a canny negotiating ploy: Iran would agree not to do something that it only started doing because of the war.

The best inducement America can offer would be broad relief from sanctions. Iran’s economy was a mess even before the war, and it has now suffered extensive damage to its infrastructure and its vital steel and petrochemical industries. Lifting sanctions would unlock investment needed for reconstruction. It would also no doubt enrich the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the defenders of the regime, who control a big chunk of the economy. That would be controversial in Washington. Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican senator, has already called for congressional review of any deal.

Both sides have good reason to hope the talks succeed, despite the obstacles. The war has already gone on longer than Mr Trump expected, and he is keen to have it finished before his summit with Xi Jinping in China on May 14th (which has already been postponed once). The conflict in Iran is deeply unpopular at home, with just 34% of Americans in favour. For Iran, renewed fighting would be catastrophic. America and Israel would probably expand their strikes on economic targets. Iran would do the same in Gulf countries, which would cause an even bigger shock to oil prices.

Traders were predictably giddy about the news of a ceasefire. The price of Brent crude plunged 13% in the hours after it was announced, slipping below $95 a barrel for the first time since March 11th. But two weeks will not be enough to undo the damage of the previous six. Firms will need time to repair facilities and restart production. Some tankers are in the wrong place, having diverted as far away as America to pick up cargoes; others might be reluctant to enter the Gulf, lest they find themselves stuck when the truce expires. If negotiators cannot reach a durable deal, the enthusiasm in energy markets might be short-lived.

Should they fail, there is another option: an uneasy return to the status quo. Iran would remain under American sanctions and the threat of further American strikes. It would continue to menace its Gulf neighbours, hoping to bully them into paying for peace. It would also have a stockpile of more than 400kg of uranium enriched to near-weapons-grade, and strong motivation to build a bomb. That would be a bad outcome for everyone: a weakened, hostile regime; an impoverished Iran; and a lingering threat to the global economy.■