{"id":45469,"date":"2026-04-09T06:25:16","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T06:25:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/?p=45469"},"modified":"2026-04-09T06:25:16","modified_gmt":"2026-04-09T06:25:16","slug":"thursday-briefing-what-difference-will-the-ceasefire-in-the-middle-east-make-and-will-it-hold-us-israel-war-on-iran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/?p=45469","title":{"rendered":"Thursday briefing: \u200bWhat difference will the ceasefire in the Middle East make, and will it hold? | US-Israel war on Iran"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Good morning. On Tuesday, just an hour before the deadline imposed by Donald Trump<\/a> for Iran to reopen navigation in the strait of Hormuz or face a wave of \u201ccivilisation-ending\u201d strikes, a two-week pause in hostilities was announced. After weeks of US and Israeli attacks on Tehran, and Iranian retaliation across the region, the news prompted relief among world leaders.<\/p>\n

But unanswered questions are piling up. Israel\u2019s assault on Lebanon continues<\/a>, with Trump describing that conflict as a separate skirmish not included in the deal, despite Iran seeming to think otherwise. Overnight the US president has used social media to warn that \u201cthe \u2018shootin\u2019 starts,\u2019 bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before\u201d unless Tehran complies with \u201cthe real agreement\u201d.<\/p>\n

For today\u2019s newsletter I spoke to the Guardian\u2019s senior international correspondent Peter Beaumont<\/strong><\/em>, who has reported widely from across the region, about the chances of the deal holding, how the US-Israeli campaign has shifted the balance of power, and what may come next. First, the headlines.<\/p>\n

Five big stories<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Middle East<\/strong><\/em> | The fate of the two-week ceasefire in the Iran conflict looked in peril<\/a> as both sides gave divergent versions of what had been agreed. Iran halted the passage of oil tankers because of an alleged Israeli ceasefire breach.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Middle East<\/strong><\/em> | Israel carried out its largest attack on Lebanon<\/a> since its war with Hezbollah began, killing at least 254 people and wounding 837.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Middle East<\/strong><\/em> | The UK has a \u201cjob\u201d to help reopen the strait of Hormuz<\/a>, Keir Starmer said on arriving in the Middle East, as Iranian reports said the key shipping route was closed again just hours after the supposed US-Iran ceasefire.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Ukraine<\/strong><\/em> | The US has ignored compelling evidence<\/a> that Russia has been helping Iran to target US bases in the Middle East because it misguidedly \u201ctrusts\u201d Vladimir Putin, according to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Education<\/strong><\/em> | Many English universities are taking excessive financial risks<\/a> with borrowing and expansion of student numbers, threatening not only their own survival but that of others in the sector, the thinktank Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) has warned.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In depth: Trump has his ceasefire \u2013 now comes the hard part<\/h2>\n
    <\/svg><\/span>Donald Trump\u2019s threat to wipe out \u201ca whole civilisation\u201d was widely condemned.<\/span> Photograph: China News Service\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    News of a ceasefire in the US-Israeli attacks on Iran<\/a> sparked celebration on the streets of Tehran, where the government has also agreed to suspend strikes against neighbouring states. It also prompted a drop in oil prices and a jump in stocks. Both sides are likely to claim that their decision to engage militarily has been vindicated. However, whether anybody has really gained a long-term strategic advantage is unclear.<\/p>\n

    \u201cI think it\u2019s one of the mistakes that people make,\u201d Peter says. \u201cThey get bewitched by hi-tech systems that allow you to blow up things with relatively low risk. But ultimately, wars are fought on human capital as much as technological capital.\u201d<\/p>\n

    That is one of the reasons, he argues, why this looks less like a path to peace than a pause in hostilities \u2013 after a conflict that has left thousands dead, cost billions, and may not have significantly altered the balance of power in any meaningful long-term way.<\/p>\n

    And that\u2019s if it lasts.<\/p>\n

    \n

    What has been agreed \u2013 if anything?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    If there is one phrase Peter returns to again and again, it is this: is it even really a deal? (Jonathan Yerushalmy has helpfully laid out what we know about Iran\u2019s 10-point offer in this explainer<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

    Peter describes the agreement as \u201chalf-baked\u201d \u2013 less a conventional ceasefire than a hurried pause. Normally, he says, a meaningful ceasefire comes with detail and verification, \u201cbecause without verification, you don\u2019t have trust\u201d.<\/p>\n

    \u201cWhat we\u2019ve got here is more like a set of principles from the Iranians that Trump has looked at and said, \u2018Yeah, that works for me\u2019, and then a lot of running around afterwards. And already you\u2019re seeing a bit of buyer\u2019s remorse.\u201d The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth<\/a>, said on Wednesday that the US would take Iran\u2019s uranium if it didn\u2019t hand it over \u2013 at odds with the version of the deal released in Farsi, in which Iran included the phrase \u201cacceptance of enrichment\u201d for its nuclear programme.<\/p>\n

    That uncertainty matters because the next 48 hours may prove more important than that initial dramatic overnight announcement. The key question is whether this truce can survive contact with the unresolved issues that caused the crisis in the first place \u2013 Iran\u2019s nuclear programme, sanctions, freedom of navigation through Hormuz, and the wider regional conflict.<\/p>\n

    \u201cWe\u2019ve got no meaningful way to judge what the expectations are,\u201d Peter says, \u201csince different sides seem to have different interpretations \u2013 including the mediators.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n

    What has shifted since the US and Israel launched their attack?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Peter is sceptical that the war has meaningfully changed the underlying picture. Iran, he says, has clearly been badly hurt \u2013 \u201cthey\u2019ve been mauled\u201d \u2013 with serious damage to infrastructure and leadership. But on the core political questions, much looks familiar.<\/p>\n

    Tehran\u2019s public position on not wanting a nuclear weapon has not changed. Nor, fundamentally, has the dispute over enrichment. \u201cWe\u2019re back to JCPOA territory,\u201d Peter says \u2013 referring to the Iran nuclear deal that Israel\u2019s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu long sought to undermine and Trump ripped up during his first term.<\/p>\n

    One issue Trump will be watching closely is domestic opinion. \u201cThis is not like Afghanistan after 9\/11 or Iraq in 2003, this is not a popular war in the US\u201d Peter says. \u201cWe can all see how much it costs to fill up a car, and Trump knows \u2013 even if he tries to deny it \u2013 how badly this is hurting him in the polls.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The impact of the war can be tracked in real time: oil prices, pensions, fuel costs. The global system is signalling very clearly that it wants stability, not escalation.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Who has been weakened most?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Peter thinks both Washington and Israel may emerge looking weaker than they hoped.<\/p>\n

    \u201cIt\u2019s not clear to me what the American interest was in this,\u201d he says. \u201cWhat was Washington supposed to get out of it?\u201d<\/p>\n

    On the Israeli side, too, the outcomes look limited. There has been no regime change in Tehran. Iran\u2019s nuclear stockpile remains part of the negotiation. And if the aim was to make Israel safer, Peter is unconvinced.<\/p>\n

    \u201cIt looks to me like a massive bust,\u201d he says. \u201cYou\u2019ve got the same regime in Tehran \u2013 wounded and angrier \u2013 still there, presumably looking for an opportunity to retaliate with a degree of deniability.\u201d<\/p>\n

    That does not mean Iran has emerged unscathed. But Peter cautions against confusing military damage with strategic success. He compares some of the briefings from Washington to the \u201cfive o\u2019clock follies\u201d of Vietnam<\/a>: impressive claims about what has been hit, with far less clarity about what has been achieved.<\/p>\n

    \u201cYou can make a lot of damage,\u201d he says, \u201cbut that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean you\u2019ve achieved your political objectives. We\u2019ve seen this before \u2013 with Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel and Hamas. Groups can rearm quickly if they want to.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The UK has also been affected. As political correspondent Alexandra Topping explains here<\/a>, the conflict has revealed some important \u2013 and sometimes painful \u2013 lessons about the UK\u2019s geopolitical standing and military readiness.<\/p>\n

    \n

    What are the biggest risks to the pause?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The most immediate risk is that one of the parties \u2013 or their allies \u2013 trips it up.<\/p>\n

    Peter points in particular to Lebanon, where heavy Israeli strikes on Wednesday<\/a> underline how limited this pause may be. \u201cIsrael may go out of its way to try to provoke Iran as a spoiler,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

    Trump, in other words, may now find himself trying to preserve a ceasefire that one of his closest allies never really wanted. As Peter put it in this analysis piece<\/a>, having gambled on the war, Netanyahu has failed to secure the fall of the theocratic regime or its nuclear stockpile. It is unlikely Israel\u2019s leader will feel the job has been done.<\/p>\n

    That pattern has been seen elsewhere. The hostilities against Iran have, to some extent, taken the world\u2019s eye off the situation in Gaza<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    This morning five humanitarian organisations including Save the Children issued a scorecard of the Gaza ceasefire six months after it was agreed \u2013 and they concluded it is \u201cfailing\u201d, stating that: \u201cPalestinians are continuing to suffer extreme deprivation, hunger, injury, and death due to the Israeli government\u2019s continued attacks, movement restrictions, and aid obstructions.\u201d<\/p>\n

    <\/figure>\n

    Even if this truce holds, it would represent only a partial de-escalation of one aspect of the conflict.<\/p>\n

    \n

    What comes next?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Pakistan has played a prominent role as mediator \u2013 it has no desire for a destabilised Iran on its borders that may embolden insurgent groups such as the Balochistan separatists. But Peter stresses that it is not alone: Egypt and others have also been pushing hard to stop the conflict spreading further.<\/p>\n

    \u201cNo one wanted this,\u201d he says. \u201cIn the Gulf they want to go back to shipping oil and making money.\u201d<\/p>\n

    For some regional powers, a quick and easy campaign against Iran might have been tolerable if it had remained low-risk. It plainly has not. Instead, Trump and Netanyahu find themselves trying to manage an unstable, costly and diplomatically toxic situation that has horrified much of the world. In Peter\u2019s bleak summation, their diplomatic capital has been \u201cpiled up and set on fire, and then covered in petrol, and then set on fire again\u201d.<\/p>\n

    This morning\u2019s most important question is not whether a ceasefire has been announced \u2013 it has. The question is whether it can survive the realities it was designed to postpone. Right now, the answer remains profoundly uncertain.<\/p>\n

    What else we\u2019ve been reading<\/h2>\n
    <\/svg><\/span>Bring on the fish burger \u2026<\/span> Photograph: REDA\/Universal Images Group\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n