US President Donald Trump, operating largely through a small group of White House advisers and bypassing traditional diplomatic institutions, played a central role in securing the agreement. This unconventional approach has left many questioning the durability of the deal and the strategic goals behind it.
US special envoy Steve Witkoff has since urged a broader peace framework involving Tehran. However, confusion within the Iranian leadership has cast doubt on whether any team on the Iranian side has the authority or unity to negotiate meaningful terms. Despite the uncertainty, unofficial communication channels between the two sides are reportedly active.
The ceasefire followed recent US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. President Trump had earlier claimed that the attacks crippled Iran’s nuclear programme. But a preliminary assessment by American intelligence suggests the strikes caused only limited damage, with several key sites hit but not destroyed.
Iran’s military remains largely intact and still poses a potential threat to US assets in the region, even as both sides publicly commit to the ceasefire for now.
The evolving situation has left many observers cautious, with some warning that the truce could be temporary unless backed by structured negotiations and clearer commitments from both sides.